Evolution of Public Administration as a Discipline

Public administration as an activity has existed since time immemorial, that is, ever since the organized
state came into existence. It is as old as society and state themselves. However, Public Administration as
an academic discipline is only about 130 years old (from its inception in 1887) which is relatively a recent
discipline as compared to other disciplines like political science or history.
For most period of its evolution, this discipline has been fluctuating between the realms of Political
Science and Management.
Public administration’s development as an academic field may be conceived as a succession of several
overlapping paradigms.

Nicholas Henry in his famous book "Public Administration and Public Affairs" gives five paradigms in
the evolution of the discipline of Public Administration. As Robert T. Golembiewski noted, each phase
may be characterized according to whether it has “locus (where)” or “focus (what).”

LOCUS is institutional “where” of discipline

FOCUS is defined as the specialized “what” of discipline

Paradigm -1 Politics-Administration Dichotomy (1900-1926)

It all started with the publication of Woodrow Wilson’s Essay in 1887 However, Wilson did
not draw a clear line between the politics and the administration.
The benchmark date for the paradigm -1 period corresponds to the publication of books written by Frank
J. Goodnow and L.D White.
In “Politics and Administration” (1900) Goodnow contended that there were two distinct functions of
govt. that is,
i) Politics, which expresses the politics or will of the state and,
ii) Administration, which executes these policies.

The emphasis on paradigm 1 was on locus i.e., where Public Administration should be. In the view of
Goodnow and his fellow Public administrationist, PA should center in the government bureaucracy. This
view and concept of PA became increasingly problematic for academic and practitionist alike and this
era is known as Politics-Administration dichotomy.

Paradigm - 2 Principles of Administration (1927-1937)

In 1927 F.W Willoughby’s book, “The Principles of Public Administration” was published as a 2nd full-
fledged text in the field of PA. This book opened up the idea that in PA, certain scientific principles of
administration were there to discover and by learning of that principle, an administrator can be expert
in their work.
Thus the theme of this era is ‘focus’, in which seeking an expertise in administrative principles.
This stage in evolution of PA reached its zenith with the appearance of Gulick and Urwick’s papers on
“The Science of Administration” in 1937. They have propounded POSDCORB principle but due to the
concentration on the focus principle, POSDCORB principle was not practically applied in the
management.
The Challenge (1938-1947)
In 1938, Chester I Bernard wrote a book on “The Functions of the Executive” marked a year that the PA
has received its first conceptual challenge. The two pillars of PA i.e., Politics and Administrative
Dichotomy and Principle of Administration was challenged in this era.
It was objected that-

1. Politics and administration could never be separated clearly because in practice, there is close
‘nexus’ (connection) between politics and administration.
2. Principles of administration were not something big enough.

Herbert Simon and Robert Dahl were in support of the above two objections.

The Reaction to the Challenge (1947-1950)

Simon offered an alternative to the old paradigm in his essay entitled, “A comment on the science of
Public Administration” published in the Public Administration Review (PAR).
For Simon, a new paradigm in PA means that there will have two kinds of Public Administrationist:
1) Scholars concerned with developing pure science of administration based or grounding social
psychology
2) A larger group concerned with prescribing Public Policy

Both these two kinds were mutually reinforcing components and they have to go side by side

Paradigm – 3 Public Administration as Political Science (1950-1970)

The 3rd phase of the development of PA as a discipline was largely exercises in re-establishing the
linkages between PA and Pol Sc. This results in the renewal of the concentration of locus and a
corresponding loss of focus.
But there were several issues such as-
1. Absence of comprehensive intellectual framework for public administration as a separate
discipline.
2. And willing of political scientists to engulf public administration into political science.

The influence of this paradigm was that public administration was merely mentioned as an "area of
interest", an "emphasis" or even a "synonym" of political science.
The condition of PA become even more degraded by the end of 1960s. the American Political Science
Association moved officially to rid itself of public administration.
Paradigm – 4 Public Administration as an Administrative Science/Management (1956-1970)
As public administration was struggling for its identity, some Public Administrationist began searching
for alternatives. The administrative science option that is organization theory and management science
is a viable alternative
As a paradigm, Administrative Science provides a focus.
 In 1956, a journal called "Administrative Science Quarterly" was founded by a public
administration. The artificial distinction between the public & business administration was
sought to be removed.

 In 1968 Minnowbrook Conference was organized and New Public Administration was born.
It called to free public administration both from political science and the management to help the
discipline identify its uniqueness & distinct identity.

Finally, it was becoming increasingly clear to public administrationists that neither political science nor
management addressed their interest, nor could they. With this, a new phase began.

Paradigm-5 Public Administration as Public Administration (1970)

Paradigm 5 started from 1970 with the establishment of the National Association of Schools of
Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). In some ways this paradigm can be viewed as
return to the locus of bureaucracy.
This is seen as the faith of Public Administrators in the separate identity of the discipline of public
administration. This has enhanced the prestige & confidence of the discipline.

Public administration is, at last, intellectually prepared for the building of an institutionally
autonomous educational curriculum.
This is because of the presence of a paradigmatic focus of organization theory and management
science and also a paradigmatic locus of the public interest as it relates to public affairs.

Present Status of the discipline of PA

(Emergence of Governance)

The present status of the discipline of Public Administration exist side by side with the ‘Public
Administration as Public Administration’ paradigm and will probably continue to so always.
Since late 1980s some trends are visible in the field of public administration. These are:
i) trend of globalization,
ii) redefinition of the role of government towards partnership & collaboration,
iii) treating citizens as customers,

iv) focus on providing 'value for money',

v) devolution of powers to the local governments and administration at lower levels.
The traditional boundaries between the public sector, private sector and the voluntary sectors
are thinning down. Governance is seen as joint responsibility of public, private and non-profit
institutions rather than of government alone. Thus a shift from government towards
governance has been taking place in the field of public administration. Less government and
more governance are emphasized this phase.
Thus the field of public administration has redefined itself towards increasing relevance and
importance of the human welfare.

Conclusion
Even in the changed paradigm of governance from government, it will be the government only
that will remain central to public administration. However public administration will be
practiced in all the three forms: public, private or non-profit sectors. Though the locus of
the discipline has been weakened as it is not only the government with which the public
administration is concerned but the focus of the discipline i.e. to implement "social change”.
As mentioned in paradigm 5, public administration will remain an autonomous profession and
discipline wherever is practiced. It has found a balance between its locus and focus.