Pub. Ad. Optional (Evolution and Paradigms of Public Administration) by Abhishiekh Saxena

Model Answer

Question #1. Philadelphia conference (1967), failed to provide a definition of Public Administration. It nonetheless made significant contribution to build consensus on substantive aspects of discipline. Explain.

Approach:

• Briefly mention the agenda of the conference and major themes.
• Elaborate on the substantive aspects on which consensus was reached.

In 1967, American Academy of political and social science organized a conference at Philadelphia under the chairmanship of James C. Charlesworth. The conference aimed to discussing the scope, objectives and methods of public administration and how far it was practical instrument of government. The conference did not reach an agreement either on the definition or on its scope. But there emerged a broad consensus on the following points. 

• It is just as difficult to delineate the scope of public administration, as it is to define it.
• The policy-administration dichotomy is erroneous.
• Bureaucracy should be studied structurally and functionally.
• Public administration and business administration training should not be combined.
• Public administration has not been able to deal with societal problems, and as a discipline. It should remain separate from discipline of political science.
• Policy and political considerations are replacing management concern, future administrators should be trained in professional schools, and superior subordinates all should be commodore as co-ordinates.
• Public administration course should emphasis on interdisciplinary approach.

Question #2. The discipline of Public administration has witnessed a number of paradigm shifts in course of its evolution. Discuss.

Aprroach:

• The question points towards various paradigms of PA.
• Write chronologically about each of them.
• Highlight important characteristics of each.

Paradigm 1: Politics/Administration Dichotomy, 1900- 1926

• (Traditional/Classical) tradition (Woodrow Wilson, Frank Goodnow), provided the rationale for PA to be an academic discipline and professional specialty.
• Wilson was credited for positing the existence of major distinction between Politics/Administration or what became known as P/A dichotomy.
• The role of politics has something to do with policies or the expressions of the will of state while administration, with execution.
• “Introduction to the Study of Public Administration” by L.D. White, made a distinction the PA is a value free science that aims at economy and efficiency

Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration 1927-37

• W.F. Willoughby published “Principles of Public Administration.
• Advocated the idea of Principles in Administration.
• LOCUS was lost to the FOCUS on Principles.
• Theses principles could be applied anywhere of the PA.
• In 1937, Gulick and Urwick published, “Papers on the Science of Administration.
• Gave Seven Principles POSDCORB.

The Challenge to Paradigm 3: 1938-1950

• C.I. Barnard’s “The Function of Executive” gave Challenge through his theory that:

1. 1. Politics-PA Dictomy is wrong.
   2. Principles of PA to be abandoned.

• F.M. Marx questioned in his book “Elements of Public Administration”, that the Decisions were actually influenced by Politics. “The theory of PA in our times means in our time a theory of Politics also”
• Herbert Simon in 1947 in his book “Administrative Behaviour: A study of Decision Making Processes in Administration Organisation”, said Every principle could be neglected by a Counter Principle

Reaction to the Challenge: 1947-1950

• Simon suggested:

1. 1. Pure Science of PA on basis of social-psychology.
   2. Public Policy should be part of PA

• Political Scientist feared secession of PA from Political Science.
• A leading journal “American Political Science Review” mentioned, ‘Dominion of Political Science over PA should be maintained’.

Paradigm 3: Public Administration as Political Science 1950-1970

• It resulted in loss of FOCUS of PA.
• While LOCUS was maintained as the Governmental Bureaucracy.
• The influence of this paradigm was that, PA was just an ‘Area of Interest’ of Political Science.
• PA was mentioned as “Intellectual Wasteland”.
• The impact of Political Science over PA was:

– Democratic

– Pluralistic Polity

– Political Participation

– Equality under Law

Paradigm 4: Public Administration as Management 1956-1970

• Developed by side by side to Paradigm 3.
• It lost its identity behind some ‘Larger’ concept.
• FOCUS was in some specialized technique and expertise.
• In 1956, “Administrative Science Quaterly” was founded for both Public & Private Administration.
• A artificial distinction between Business and Public Administration was removed due to same techniques and Expertise in administration.
• In 1968, Minnowbrook Conference was organized and “NPA” was born.
• PA showed disinclination towards economy, administrative techniques, budgeting etc. •

It called to free PA both from Political Science and management to help discipline identify its uniqueness and identity

Paradigm 5: Public Administration as Public Administration 1970-Present

• It distinguishes it both from Political Science and Management.
• It is viewed as return of LOCUS of PA.
• In 1970, The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration(NASPAA) was established.

Paradigm 6: Emergence of Governance 1990- Present

• It doesn’t replaced Paradigm 5 but evolved side by side.
• Some trends were developed as Globalisation, Redefining Government as Partner, Treating citizens as customers.
• Governence is seen as a joint responsibility of Public, Private and Non-Profit organisations.
• Less Government and more Governance was emphasized.
• Trend was from “Hierarchical Govt” to “Horizontal Governing”.
• Government today is Sum Total of Laws, Policies, Organisations, Institutions, Co0operative Arrangements.
• The Rockefeller Foundation in US facvoured separation of PA from politics but emphasized the role of administration in policy formulation.
• “Refounding Movement” argued for Constitutionally based Policy roles for Administrators..
• A new role of PA was in ‘Policy Making’

New Paradigms in Public Administration

• Reinventing Government
• The New Public Management
• New Public Services
• Post-Modern Public Administration
• E-Governance