E. Public Administration Its Loco-Focal Metamorphosis By: Ferdinand J.

Lamarca

Introduction

Public Administration, as a practice, has something to do with getting things done

through efficient and economical utilization of resources available to the government
towards the accomplishment of the goals and aspiration of the people. The strategies by
various administrators and leaders may differ but the regnant goal is the same- improved
public service. Washington preoccupied himself with the establishment of the foundations
of American democracy; Lincoln with the establishment of a” government of the people,
by the people and for the people; and Kennedy with the preservation of world peace and
protection of the sovereign rights of free nations. In our country, Quezon tried, though
with not much success, his social justice program while Quirino launched his “land for the
landless” policy. Garcia, risking the ire of the imperialist powers, initiated his “Filipino
First” policy. Marcos ruled the land with his “iron fist” while Aquino vowed, but with a
resounding flop, to demarcosify the system. Future leaders will adopt varying policies and
strategies but such adoption will be in accordance with the changing needs of the people
they will serve.

As a science of field of study, the heritage of contemporary public administration

carries within itself a long and hard history of inquiring and theorizing what has been
classified and reclassified into overlapping strands. Scholars, however, generally agree
that Public Administration as field of study or discipline was formally inaugurated with
Wilson’s monumental classic on the filed which was first published in the pages of Political
Science Quarterly in 1887. From thereon, the discipline has assumed changing meanings
and shifting concerns. To date, five perspective have been identified, with new one
emerging. They are traditional public administration, development public administration,
development administration, development public administration and finally, for lack of
term, development public administration redefined.

TRADITIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (TPA)

1900 to early post World War II

The late 19th century America was the integrity and efficiency of administration
buffeted and tarnished by spoilsmen in the service who were put in place by courtesy of
partisan politics. In an effort to contain this, Woodrow Wilson proposed politics-
administration dichotomy wherein he sought a “politically neutral, professional, morally
irreproachable and efficient bureaucracy.”
 The period 1900 to 1926 saw a reinforcing of Wilsonian ethic. Frank Goodnow in
his Politics and Administration publish in 1900 supported Wilson’s thesis by delineating
politics which is formation of policies from administration which is the execution of such
policies. In 1926, Leonard White in his Introduction to the study of Public Administration
likewise “that politics should not intrude on administration.”

The removal of spoilsmen, however, was insufficient to bring about an effective

and efficient administration. In 1927, F. W. Willoughby in his book Principles of
Administration preached that “certain scientific principles were there.. and administrators
would become experts if they learned how to apply them.” In the same vein, Urwick and
Gullick in their Paper on the Science of Administration which came out in 1937 drummed
up the wisdom of absorbing these principles developed in the private sector into the
stream of government administration. Thus, Frederick Talyor’s scientific management,
Hendri Fayol’s principles of administration and Max Weber’s bureaucracy were adopted
and applied in government administration. Accordingly, administrative problems then
were considered technical problems whose solutions lay in the application of such
principles as: selecting the right man for thee job, deciding by method study as the best
way to do the job, division of labor, unity of command, impersonality and others:

As gleaned from the forgoing, it can be said that efficiency, effectiveness, and
economy of administration can be served by 1. Separating administration from politics
and 2. Applying scientific principles. It being so, administrative capability or the ability to
attain development may be viewed in terms of the ability to efficiently execute policy
externally processed. The measures for enhancing such ability are: 1. the separation of
administration from politics, 2. application of scientific principles, and 3. organizing along
bureaucratic lines.

From the period 1938-1950, Traditional Public Administration was challenged

bringing about its “paradigmatic crisis” or “crisis of identity.” Two objections were
hurdled, to wit 1. Politics and administration can never be separated and 2. Principles of
administration are logically inconsistent. The proponents of the first objection were
Chester Barnard (Functions of the Executive, 1928), F.M. Marks (Elements of PA, 1946)
and J.M Gaus (A Theory of PA, 1950) whose studies of the bureaucratic document the
fact that administrators participate in policy-making.

On the other hand, Robert Dahl, Herbert Simon and Dwight Waldo questioned the
“viability of administration as a science with universally applicable principles given a
variety of values, personality and social framework, on which such principles are to apply.

These challenges together with the “mounting disenchantment with bureaucratic

slowness and on-responsiveness, including its pathological consequences upon human
behavior as expressed in the works of Warnotte, Dewy, Zelsnick, Thompson and others
(e.g trained incapacity, professional deformation and bureausis) laid the groundwork for
the emergence of new perspective, the New Public Administration (NPA).

NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (NPA) 1968

New Public Administration was inaugurated at the Minnowbrook conference in

1968 as a response, according to Todd La Porte, one of its proponents, to the call for
relevance. Perhaps, “its most distinguishing feature is its normative orientation, or its
advocacy of our commitment to social justice and the enhancement of quality of life and
purposively, “it seeks to change policy structures that systematically inhibit social equity
and to reduce human suffering, particularly those that arise from existing oppressive,
administrative arrangements”. The processes with which to achieve such goals are no
longer the hollowed triptych of conventional public administration but distributive,
integrative, boundary exchange, and socio-emotional processes.

By integrative process is meant the shifting from the traditional bureaucratic

structures which tend to inhibit social equity because of red-tape, inefficiency and
slowness to counter bureaucratic ones, e.g. matrix organization, project team and
decentralized structures. NPA assumes that these non-hierarchical structures are more
responsive to changing and turbulent environment because they are” temporary, problem
oriented, flat in structure, simple, unobtrusively led (because the leader operates from a
position of expertise, not authority) and in intimate interaction with their targets.
Bureaucratic structures, on the hand, are constrained by rules, formalism, ritual, and
organization member’s interest in status, authority, and power.

The boundary exchange process preaches the wisdom of interaction or linkage

between public agencies and its reference groups, publics, or clients. The significant role
of public participation is based on the proposition that people contribute to and support
these efforts to which they have contributed and which they have helped decide. Thus,
it is believed that “program which involve the widest possible participation of people
whose needs are addressed are most likely to be effective.”

The socio-economic process seeks to complement the three other processes in its
attempt to make administrative behavior more sensitive to emotions, conflicts, and risks.
This is the antidote to bureaucratic insensitivity, and impersonality.

Based on this perspective, administrative capability may be viewed as the ability

to formulate policies that enhance social equity and the measures for enhancing such
ability are the following: 1. Rejection of politics-administration dichotomy, 2. Recognition
of the centrality of human person, 3. Counter-bureaucratic organizations, 4.
Decentralization, and 5. Popular participation.
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (DA) 1950s

While TPA and NPA were born in USA, Development Administration (DA) gained
currency in Third World nations when these got their political independence and set their
sights on the development of economy following the example of the west. The main task
of DA is to search for theories that can be describe and explain the management of
economic growth. This period saw the importation of techniques such as organizational
and management, the so-called tryptic of administration, and planning, programming and
budgeting system (PPBS) with the end of improving the planning process and staff
functions. As such, DA, like DPA, continues to focus on internal organization, and
economy and efficiency remain as evaluatory concepts. Organization along bureaucratic
lines still is the model.

Administrative capability based on this perspective may be viewed as the ability to

provide efficient management for economic growth. The direct measure to enhance such
ability is technology transfer, i.e. importation of tools values, and structures to the Third
World Nations.

Unfortunately, such strategy did not work. On both theoretical and empirical
grounds, the framework may be faulted. As serious flaw is its “a historical ideal-typical
features” as described by Andre Gunder Frank. The model fails to recognize that the
context within which the new rich nations had developed is basically different from the
context within which the poor nations are presently developing, there were the colonies
which served as the source of raw materials and markets, if not dumping sites of their
exports. Now as the former colonies desperately blaze their development trail, there exist
no more colonies to exploit.

Secondly, with the assumption that the cause of underdevelopment is lack of

capital, entrepreneurship, and modern institutions, this model dismisses the possibility
that the very socio-economic and political structures obtaining among the poor nations
may pose the real obstacles to development.

Thirdly, while “a number of developing nations experienced relatively high rates of

growth per capita income during 1960s and 1970s, they simultaneously showed little or
no improvement in employment, equality and real income of the bottom 40 percent of
the population”. As seen from the forgoing, DA whose measure enhancing administrative
capability was transfer of technology did not work in the Third World.

DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (DPA) 1980s

Because of the failure of the DA among the poor nations, a new variety of public
administration emerged in the 1980s. Carino calls it development public administration
(DPA). Like NPA, it emphasizes the values of social justice, equity and centrality of the
human person. Like DA, it focuses on the problems of Third World Nations instead of the
US and it is not against bureaucracy as an organization since change is required only of
people not necessarily of structures. In contrast with the DA and NPA, however, it locates
its bureaucracy not only within its own society but also in the context of global system
which impinges on constrains policies.

DPA provides another basis for defining administrative capability. Based on this
perspective, administrative capability may be seen as the ability to implement policies
that enhance economic growth and equity independent from dictates of foreign powers.
The mechanisms to enhance administrative capability are the following: 1. Endogenous
technology, 2. Recognition of the centrality of human person 3. Decentralization 4.
Recognition of administration as integral part of political processes.

DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFOCUSED

Forging political stability and promoting economic recovery have been the twin
goals of Aquino regime, or even the past regimes. Successfully attaining them requires,
among others, a cooperative and coordinated relationship between government agencies
and an empowerment of masses, particularly the very clientele of development efforts.
Accordingly, programs and projects have been fashioned and implemented through the
joint efforts of the energized bureaucracy, the private business and the project
beneficiaries.

This emerging perspective provides another basis for refocusing the concern of
DPA, like DPA and NPA, this set-up emphasizes the values of social justice, equity and
client-orientedness. Like TPA, it recognizes the 3 Es- economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness. Like DPA and DA, it focuses on the problems of developing nations. Unlike
DPA, however, it locates its bureaucracy more within its own society taking into
consideration the socio-economic and psychological questions on how the development
clientele, usually the deprived, disadvantaged and underserved, act and react in groups,
as well as, the capitalist tendencies of the private business against which the clientele’s
desire for increase, if equitable services or profits wrestle.

This perspective, thus provides another basis for redefining administrative

capability. Based on this, the ability to effect development may be seen as the ability to
formulate and implement policies that enhance economic sufficiency, social adequacy and
equity cognizant but independent of the dictates of local business. Among the mechanism
to enhance such ability are the following: the fusion and the collaboration of the energized
bureaucracy, private business and the clientele of development; consideration of the
social and psychological questions on how the clientele act and react in groups, that is,
where they are dissatisfied and reluctant due, most probably, to implementers
themselves, effort at showing greater commitment should be made, and regulation of the
involvement of the capitalists as the precondition to the realization of adequacy and
equity in production and profitability be made.

As shown, the field of Public Administration is substantially different from what it

was in its inception. It has metamorphosed according to the changing needs and concerns
of the time. But it has done this unto itself in an effort to achieve, successfully or
otherwise, the same objective: improved public service.