y Cee 6 Public Administration ADMINISTRATION : MEANING AND DEFINITIONS Before discussing the meaning of Public Administration, it is necessary to first understand the meaning of the term Administration, Administration is a co-operating human effort towards achieving some common goals. Thus, every group activity involves administration whether in a family, factory, hospital, university, or in a government department, Whenever two men co-operate together to do a thing that neither could have done alone, the rudiments of administration appear. The word Administration is a noun from the English verb administer which has been derived from the Latin words ‘Administrare’ = ‘ad’ + ‘ministrare’ which means “to serve" or ‘to care for’ or ‘to look after people’. In simple words, it means the management of affairs; or ‘looking after the people.’ To administer is to ‘manage’, “direct” or ‘serve.’ Administration is a process permeating all collective effort, be it public or private, civil or military, large-scale or otherwise. Administration," being a characteristic of all enterprises in pursuit of conscious purposes, is not a peculiarity or speciality of modern age alone. Indeed, its glimmerings could well be perceived quite early in the growth of civilization. Building the pyramids was an astonishing administrative feat. So was the running of the Roman Empire. Public Administration of today, however, has three distinguishing features: “Its purposes have been completely reoriented, its functions have enormously increased in number, variety and complexity, and its methodology has grown from the trial-and-error stage into an orderly discipline with an organized, ever-increasing body of knowledge and experience.”! Administration, thus, permeates all organized human activities. Some definitions of term ‘Administration’ are as follows : Pfiffmer and Presthus define Administration as “the organization and direction of human and material resources to achieve desired ends.” “Administration”, according to John A.Vieg, “is determined action taken in pursuit of conscious purpose. It is the systematic ordering of affairs and the calculated use-of resources, aimed at making those things happen which we want to happen and simultaneously preventing developments that fail to square with our intentions. It is the marshalling of available labour and materials in order to gain that which is desired at the lowest cost in energy, time and money.” According to L. D. White, Administration is “the direction, coordination and control of many persons to achieve some purpose or objective,” Herbert A. on points out, “In its broadest sense, Administration can be defined as the activities of groups cooperating to accomplish common goals.” According to E. A. Nigro, “Administration is the organization and use of men and materials to accomplish a purpose.” (<— Thus, it is clear that Administration is collective activity directed towards the attainnient of a specific goal. It is a rational action to maximize one’s goal by rationally means. But every collective activity cannot be called administration. In fact two features— (i) Organization and (ii) Management—are special features of administrative activity: 1 A Handbook of Public Administration, op. cits p. 4, a ee |Public Administration : Meaning, Nature and Scope 7 So we can say that administration is only that type of collective activity which involves rational organization and management of men and material PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : MEANING AND DEFINITIONS As stressed at the outset, Public Administration is a segment of the wider field of “Administration”, But on its meaning, thore arc differences. According to some, the use of the word Public before Administration restricts its coverage to the administrative activities of the government—government being the only organization which covers within itself all the people living in the state. Public ‘Administration is defined as the organization and management of human and material resources to fulfil the objectives laid down by the government. But government, as we all know, consists of three branches—logislature, executive, and judiciary. Is Public Administration to study all these three branches that make up the government ? Views on this question are also divided. To some, Public Administration is identified with the entire range of government activities covered under the three branches, whereas others restrict it ie, Public Administration to the operations of the executive branch only. It may be appropriate here to quote W. F. Willoughby : “The term ‘Administration’ may be employed in political science in two senses. In its broadest sense, it denotes the work involved with actual conduct of governmental affairs. It is, thus, quite proper to speak of the administration of legislative branch of government, the administration of justice or judicial affairs, or the administration of the executive power as well as the administration of affairs of the administrative branch of government, or the conduct of the affairs of the government generally. In its narrowest sense, it denotes the operations of the administrative branch only.” Some well known definitions of Public Administration are as follows L. D. White defines Public Administration in the broader terms. He sai “Public Administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy.” Luther Gulick, on the other hand, views Public Administration as embracing the executive branch of government only. “Public Administration,” he writes, “is that part of the science of administration which has to do with government and, thus, concerns itself primarily with the executive branch, where the work of government is done though there are obviously administrative problems also in connection with the legislative and judi ial branches.” ‘According to John M. Pfiffner, “Public ‘Administration consists of doing the work of government, whether it be running X-ray ‘machine in a health laboratory or coming money in the mint.” Woodrow Wilson, the father of Public Administration defines, “Public ‘Administration is detailed and systematic application of law. Every particular application of law is an act of administration.” ‘According to James Fesler, “Public Administration is policy execution and policy formulation : Public Administration is bureaucracy and Public Administration is Public.”8 Public Administration Dimock views that “Public Administration is concerned with the ‘What’ and the ‘how’ of government. The ‘What’ is the subject matter, the technical knowledge of a ficld which cnables an administrator to perform his tasks. The ‘how’ is the techniques of management and the principles according to which co-operative programmes are carried through to success. Each is indispensable, together they form the synthesis called the Public Administration.” It is clear from the above definitions that the term Public Administration has been used in Avo senses—wider and narrow. The Wider View has been taken up by White, Wilson, Willoughby, Pfiffner, Hamilton while Narrow View has been taken up by Gulick, Simon and others. We, in India, cannot accept the restricted definition of Public Administra- tion. So much is the mutual dependence and so intensive is the interaction between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary that Public Administration must be defined in the broader terms. It covers all the three branches of the government—the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Necessarily, it is to be studied as part of the larger political processes in a country. There is besides, that sector of activities which though not governmental in the strict sense is nevertheless supported, either wholly or partially, by the public exchequer. Educational institutions, co-operatives, etc., fall in this category and all of them are part of Public Administration. The scope of Public Administration is, thus, wide enough. Keeping this in mind one may say that Public Administration refers to the organization of public affairs and their direction. NATURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION When we come to analyse the nature of administration, we find ourselves confronted with two broad views : (1) the integral view and (2) the managerial view, (1) Integral View. According to some writers, Administration is the sum total of all the activities—manual, clerical, managerial, technical, etc.,—under- taken in pursuit of an objective in view. Thus, the activities of the errand boy, the foreman, the gatekeeper, the sweeper as well as the secretaries to government and the managers in an enterprise constitute administration. This is the Integral View, and acceptance of this view would have us count the work of all persons, ranging from the lowest to the highest, working in an enterprise as part of administration. L. D. White seems to share this view. According to him, Public Administration “consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy. This definition covers a multitude of Particular operations in many fields—the delivery of a letter, the sale of public land, the negotiation of a treaty, the award of compensation to an injured workman, the quarantine of a sick child, the removal of litter from a park, manufacturing plutonium, and licensing the use of atomic cenergy.”? (2) Managerial View. The other view regards the work of only those Persons engaged in performing managerial functions in an enterprise as consti- tuting administration, The activities concerning management unite, control and coordinate. all those operations undertaken in the enterprise, thereby making the 1 White, L. D., op. cit, p. 1.wwnee Public Administration Meaning. Nature and Scope 9 whole complex of activities look like an integrated effort. This is the Managerial view of administration. Herbert Simon, Smithburg, Thompson and Luther Gulick subscribe to this view. They observe. “The term ‘Administration’ is also used in a narrower sense to refer to those patterns of behaviours that are common to many kinds of cooperating groups: and that do not depend upon either the specific goals towards which they are cooperating or the specific technological methods used to reach these goals.”! Luther Gulick writes, “Administration has to do with getting things done, with the accomplishment of defined objectives.” He sums up his views in.the word ‘POSDCORB’ These two views manifest differences. Acceptance of the integral view makes us count the entire personnel of an undertaking as engaged in adminis- tration. Furthermore, administration would differ from one sphere (e.g. educa- tion) to another sphere (e.g.. public works), depending upon the subject matter. The managerial view, on the other hand, holds that administration is the organization and use of men and materials in the pursuit of a given objective. It is a specialized calling of the manager whose function is to organize, and to use men and materials to realize a given objective. In fine, Administration is to be identified with the managerial techniques common as they are to all the fields of activities. Luther Gulick sums up these techniques in the word ‘POSDCORB’. each letter of which describes one technique, namely—Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Co-ordinating, Reporting and Budgeting. It may here be pointed out that neither of these views can be summarily rejected. Exact meaning of administration would depend on the context in which the term is used. Dimock, Dimock and Koeing sum up by observing that “as a study Public Administration examines every aspect of government’s efforts to discharge the laws and to give effect to public policy; as a process, it is all the steps taken between the time an enforcement agency assumes jurisdiction and the last brick is placed (but includes also that agency's participation, if any, in the formulation of the programme in the first place); and as a vocation, it is organizing and directing the activities of others in a public agency.”> SCOPE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION In the definition of Public Administration, we come across fvo viewpoints, one taking the broader view and the other taking the narrow view. In the broader sense, the study of Public Administration includes the entire complex of all the three branches of the government, In the narrow sense, its study includes only the managerial part of the executive branch of government work. The differences of opinion centre round whether administration is mere execution or application of policy or is a factor in the formulation of policy also. This controversy over the scope of Public Administration is unfortunate. During the last more than 135 Years we have witnessed the growth of Public Administration as a growing eeneRccnen anes 1 Simon, Smithburg & Thompson, Public Administration, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1950, p. 4. 2 Gulick, Luther, Science Values and Public Administration, in Luther Gulick & L. Unvick (Eds.), Popers on the Science of Administration, New York, Institute of Public Administration, 1937, p. 91. 3. Dimock, Marshall E,, Dimock, Gladys O., & Kosing, L. W. Public Administration, New York, 1988, p. 12.4 10 Public Administration discipline. It is bound to grow despite projudiced reservations of na disciplinaries, even from the fiold of social sciences. In the present dove oY age we have 10 make Public Administration as a scicnlific growing divcin For this our approach to the study of Public Administration has to be mela’ scientific and broad. Thus, Public Administration embraces the entre areq an all the activitios of the government. We, in India, do not and eamnol aveept the restricted view of Public Administration, So much is the mutual dependence and so intensive is the interaction between the three branches of government that Public Administration must be defined in the broader torms, Necessarily, it is to be studied as a part of the larger political processes in a country. The scope of Public Administration is, thus, wide cnough. Writers have defined its scope in different terms. There are broadly fo views about the scope of Public Administration : 1, The POSDCORB View. 2. The Subject-matter View. 1, The POSDCORB View of Public Administration This is a narrow view of Public Administration and takes into account only the executive branch of the government. In other words, this view corresponds with the managerial view. Henri Fayol, L. Urwick, Fercey M. Queen and Luther Gulick are supporters of this view. According to Henri Fayol the main categories of administration arc : Planning, Organization, Command, Co-ordination and Control. L. Urwick, fully supports Fayol’s views. P. M. Queen says that the study of administration deals with “Men, Materials and Methods”. Views of L. Gulick regarding the scope of Public Administration are not only known but he has dealt with them in detail, He sums up these techniques in the word ‘POSDCORB’, each letter of which describe one technique. These letters stand for : P = Planning, O = Organizing, S = Staffing, D = Directing, Co = Co-ordinating, R = Reporting and B = Budgeting, Let us see what do they mean ? ‘P’—Planning means working out in broad outline the things that need to be done, the method to be adopted to accomplish the purpose sct for the enterprise. ‘O'—Organizing means the establishment of the formal structure of authority through which the work is sub-divided, arranged, defined and co-ordinated for the defined objective. ‘S'—Staffing means the whole personnel, bringing in and training the staff, and maintenance of favourable conditions of work. ‘D’—Directing means making decisions and issuing orders and instructions and thus guiding the enterprise. ‘Co'—Co-ordinating means the all important duty of inter-relating the work of various divisions, sections and other parts of the organization. . ‘R’—Reporting means keeping those informed to whom exccutive is responsible about what is going on. ‘B’—Budgeting means all that goes with budgeting in the form of fiscal planning, accounting and control.Public Administration : Meaning, Nature and Scope \1 POSDCORB activities aro common to all organizations. They are common problems: of management which aro found in the different agencies regardless of the peculiar nature of the work they do, But POSDCORB view takes into consideration only the common techniques of administration and ignores the study of the ‘subject-matter? with which an agency is concerned, Gulick’s approach is fechnique-oriented vathor than subject-orlented, Lewis Meriam says, “Public Administration is an instrument with two blades like a pair of scissors. One blade is knowledge of the subject-matter in which these techniques are applied. Both blades must be good to make an cfiective tool.” Marian donics the existence of such a thing as a general administrator, because cach case of goncral administration is specially conditioned by its peculiar subject-matter, The proper scope of Public Administration should include both the views, i.e, POSDCORB and subject-matter. 2, The Subject-matter View of Public Admi stration The subject-matter view of Public Administration has come into reckoning in reaction to the POSDCORB view. This vicw comprises line functions or services meant for the people. They include law and order, defence, social security, public health, ete. These services have specialised techniques of their own, which are not covered by the POSDCORB activitics. Moreover, even the techniques of management are-modified by the subject-matter of the services in which they have to operate. Consequently, organization and even the techniques of co-ordination in two different services are different. Therefore emphasis on the subject-matter cannot be neglected. In short, it can be said that there is no need to reject either of these views of the scope of Public Administration. Both represent the whole truth. Pfiffner has divided the scope of Public Administration into two heads : (i) Principles of Public Administration; and (ii) Sphere of Public Administration. In the first category, Public Administration covers the organization, management of personnel; method and procedure; material and supply; public finance and administrative responsibility. In the second category, the sphere of Public Administration includes the central and state government, its regional and local authorities and also public corporations. Thus, in the words of Prof. Pfiffner, “Public Administration, in sum, includes the totality of government activity, encompassing expertise of endless varicty and the techniques of organization and management whereby order and social purpose are given to the efforts of vast numbers,” Besides the above, Walker has given a more comprehensive account of the scope of Public Administration. He has divided it into Avo parts : (i) adminis- trative theory and (ii) applied administration, (i) Administrative Theory. It includes the study of structure, organization, functions, and methods of all types of public authority engaged in carrying out the administration of all levels, i.¢., national, regional, local, etc. It also studies all the problems connected with external control of parliament and the cabinet Over administration, internal and judicial control over administration, etc.12. Public Administration (ii) Applied Administration. 11 is difficult to give a comprehensive statement as to what the Applied Administration should include because of the new and fast growing ficld of Public Administration, He has made an atempt to classify the main form of applicd administration on the basis of ton principal functions, namely, political, legislative, financial, defensive, educational, social, economic, foreign, imperial, and local, Today, the administrator is concerned not only with developing the administrative techniques but it has also become important for him to study the ecological and human aspects of Public Administration, It may be said that the scope of Public Administration varies with people's expectations of what they should get from government. A century ago they expected that government should only maintain law and order, Now people cxpcet the government to promote positive welfare, guarantee social sccurity, from birth to death, guarantee a good peaceful living ctc. The activitics of Public Administration will be wide in scope, Prof. L. D. White supports this view : “In their broader context, the ends of administration are the ultimate objects of the state itsclf, the maintenance of peace and order, the progressive achievement of justice, the instruction of the young, protection against disease and insccurity, the adjustment and compromise of conflicting groups and interests in short, the attainment of good life.” Thus, it is obvious that though Public Administration studies the adminis- trative branch of the executive organ, yet its scope is very wide and it varics with the people’s conception of good life. PHILOSOPHY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Today, there is hardly any one in the society who docs not have to deal with Public Administration. Never in the human history have so many looked to Public Administration for so much, When nearly every citizen looks to it for various purposes, it is essential that it is imbued with a coherent philosophy. This is doubly necessary as Public Administration has today come to determine the vigour and quality of even non-governmental institutions in the society. Ordway Tead in the foreword to Marshall E. Dimock’s A Philosophy of Administration emphasizes the need for the formulation of a philosophy of administration, for this would “lead to a much more widespread professional sclf-conciousness and convinced sense of direction and social justification among executives than is now characteristic.” Indeed, Marshall E. Dimock is so much impressed with the need for it that he confidently asserts that “administration is now so vast an area that a philosophy of administration comes close to being a philosophy of life.”? He pointed out the following tosts of what a viable philosophy nocd to do and accomplish : 1, It must bring into sharp focus all clements cntoring into administrative action. 2. All cloments entering into administrative action should, then, be integrated and brought into a system of proper and unified relationship. 3. Where possible and developed, it should be borne in mind that they aro valid guides to future actions under substantially similar conditions. 1D. Marshall 2° Ibid, p. 2. '» A Philosophy of Administration, 1958, p, VIVAL38 Public Administration EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : MODERN ERA The systematic study of Public Administration began in the 18th century, Official academic status to the discipline did not come until World War I. Modern Public Administration was first taught as a part of the training course of public officials on probation in Prussia. The subject was largely compiled and thought sna descriptive manner by professors of cameral scicnces, which then included all knowledge considered necessary for the management of governmental affairs, The comer s showed interest in the study of Public Administration. They stressed the descriptive studies of structures, principles and procedures of public administration, George Zincke was the most distinguished scholar of the comeralist, group. Towards the end of 18th cc gathered momentum especially in efforts were systematically expanded for ontury the movement for governmental reform the United States of America where intellectual the gradual development of an exclusive body of knowledge on the structure and functioning of Public Administration. It was against this background of the reform movement that the merging discipline of Public Administration was born in the USA. The meaning and scope of Public Administration was defined for the first time in Hamilton’s the ‘Federalist (No.72). Charles Jean Bounin’s principles de Administration Publique means Principle of Public Administration (1812) in French is considered as the first separate treatise on the subject of Public Administration. But the systematic study of Public Administration reached on its zenith when Viven published his work in 1859 with the title Administration Studies (two volumes.) Public Administration as a separate subject of study originated The scientific management movement advocated by F. W. Taylor, the 19th century industrialisation which gave rise to large scale organizations, the emergence of the concept of welfare state and the movement for government reform due to negative consequences of spoils-system have contributed to the growth of Public Administration. Yet Public Administration has passed through several phases of development. We can broadly divide the history ‘of Public Administration into the following six periods : However, and developed in the USA. 1. First Stage : 1887-1926 — The Politics-Administration Dichotomy. 2. Second Stage: 1927-1937 —The Principles of Administration. 3. Third Stage : 1938-1947 — Era of Challenge. 4. Fourth Stage : 1948-1970 —Crisis of Identity 5. Fifth Stage: 1971-1990 — Public Policy Perspective. 6. Sixth Stage; 1991-onwards — Rowing to Steering (Recent Trends). ration Dichotomy First Stage : 1887-1926—The Politics-Admi Public Administration as a discipline was born in the United States, and that country continues to enrich it even today. Woodrow Wilson, who (vas teaching Political Science at the Princcton University, and who later became the President of the USA, is regarded as the father of the discipline of Public Administration. In an article entitled, the Study of Administration, published in 1887, Wilso® emphasized the need for a separate study of Public ‘Administration. He made # distinction between politics and administration, and argued : “It is.getting to beEvolution of Public Administration as a Discipline 39 harder to run a constitution than to frame one.”! Wilson’s name is associated with v0 notable features. One, he is regarded as the founder of the discipline of Public Administration, Secondly, he is the originator of Politics-Administration Dichotomy which came to dominate the scene for quite some time. No notable event took place until 1900 when Frank J. Goodnow published his Politics and Administration. In it, Goodnow developed the Wilsonian theme further and with greater courage and conviction, He argucd that Politics and ‘Administration were two distinct functions of a government. According to him, “Politics has to do with policies or expressions of the state will” while administration “has to do with the execution of these policies.”? In short, Goodnow posited the Politics-Administration dichotomy. In the early part of the twentieth century many American Universities began to take active interest in the reform movement in government, and thus scholars got attracted to the ficld of Public Administration. In 1914, the American Political Science Association published a report which delineated the objectives of the teaching of Political Science. One of the objectives proclaimed was to “prepare specialists for governmental positions.” Thus, Public Administration was recognized as an important sub-area of Political Science. The subject i. Public Administration began to gain increasing recognition in the American universities and its study was steadily spreading. In 1926, appeared the first text book on the subject. This was Leonard D. White’s Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. This book faithfully reflects the dominant theme of the contemporary period; its premises are that politics and administration are to be kept separate; and efficiency and economy are the watchwords of Public Administration. It may, thus, be scen that the dominant feature of the first period was a passionate belief in Politics- Administration dichotomy. That this dichotomy is in practice invalid did not bother the thinkers of this period. Second Stage : 1927-1937—The Principles of Admii The Second Period in the history of Public Administration has as its central theme the Principles of Administration. The central belief of this period was that there are certain ‘principles of administration’, and it is the task of the scholars to discover them and to evolve a value-free ‘science of management’, The “Public? aspect of Public Administration was virtually dropped at this stage and focus was almost wholly on efficiency. This stage can be called the stage of orthodox as efforts were underway to delineate. Firmly the boundaries of a new discipline of management. ~ This period opened wit istration fh the publication of W. F. Willoughby’s Principles of Public Administration (1927). The title of the book is very suggestive, and indicates, very correctly, the new thrust of the discipline. This period saw the publication of a number of works, the more important among them being Mary 1 Waldo, Dwight (BA) + Ideas and Issues in Puble Administration, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1953, 67. 2 Gesdiow Frank J. : Politics and Administration, New York, Macmillan, 1914, p. 22.Fa © 40 Public Administration Parker Follett’s Creative Experience, Henry Fayol’s Industrial and General Management, Mooney and Reiley’s The Principles of Organization. This period reached its climax in 1937 when Luther H. Gulick and Lyndall Urwick’s Papers on the Science of Administration appeared. The use of the word ‘science’ is significant, for Gulick and Urwiek implicd that Administration was science, Urwick observed : “It is the general thesis of this paper that there are principles which can be arrived at inductively from the study of human organization which should govern arrangements for human association of any kind. These principles can be studied as a technical question, irrespective of the purpose of the enterprise, the personnel, comprising it, or any constitutional, political or social theory underlying its creation.” What are these principles ? Gulick and Urwick coined that acronym— POSDCORB—1o promote seven principles of administration. In short, the years 1927-1937 were the ‘golden years of principles and techniques’ in the history of Public Administration. This was also a period when Public Administration commanded a high degree of respectability and its products were in great demand both in government and business. Third Stage : 1938-1947—Era of Challenges The advocates of the principles of administration began soon to be challenged, and the period from 1938 to 1947 was, indeed, one of continuous and mounting challenge and questioning. The most notable contribution, in this connection came from the famous Hawthorne Experiments (1924-1940) carried out by a group of scholars at Hawthorne plant in the Western Electric Company of the USA. These experiments pioneered the ‘Human Relations Approach” to administration or management. This approach brought out the limitations on the machine concept of organization known as ‘Scientific Management Thought’. In 1938, Chester I. Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive was published. The book discusses the broader issues of administration such as formal and informal functions, functional overlay, organizational environment, equilibrium among organizational units and inducement contributions. Chester Barnard does not in the least uphold the stand taken by the writers of the second period like Willoughby, Gulick, Urwick etc. Herbert A. Simon wrote an article entitled, The Proverbs of Administration in 1946, and its argument was further developed in his Administrative Behaviour : A Study of Decision-making Process in Administrative Organization which was published in 1947 and on which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in the year 1978. The principal thesis of Simon is that there is no such thing as principles of administration; what are paraded as ‘principles’ are in truth no better than proverbs. Herbert Simon developed a Rationalistic Decision Model of administration alongwith ‘bounded rationality’ by exposing the ambiguity and inconsistency of the theory of Scientific Management. The claim that Public Administration is a science was challenged by Robert Dahl in 1947, and he argued that the quest for principles of administration was obstructed by three factors. These were 1 Gulick, Luther and Urwick, L. (Edited) : Papers gn the Science of Administration, New York, Institute of Public Administration, 1937, p. 19.Evolution of Public Administration as a Discipline 41 yalues permeating admini personalities differ and so have inevitably to oper: found itself in a deflat was on this note that P stration while science is valuc-free. Besides, human do the social frameworks within which organizations ‘ate. As a result of these criticisms, Public Administration led position, and the morale of the discipline was low. It ‘ublic Administration entered the fourth phase in its history. Fourth Stage + 1948-1970—Crisis of Identity ree ay been one of ‘Crisis for Public Administration’. The brave new N promised by the thinkers of the ‘principles cra’ stood shattered and the future of the discipline appeared to be a little uncertain. Administrative thinkers of this time recognised the relationship of Public Administration with Politics. As a result, Public Administration became dependent on Political Science. In this condition. it was a confusion about that what is the area of discussion of Public Administration ? That is why this phase of Public Administration was facing a ‘Crisis of Identity’, After Second World War, the whole concept of Public Administration changed. This was heralded by two significant Publications of Public Adminis- tration in 1940s—Herbert Simon's Administrative Behaviour and Robert Dahl's essay entitled the Science of Public Administration : Three Problems. Simon's book is a critique of the older Public Administration. The Behaviour Scientists gave a new orientation to Administrative Theory by focussing attention on the role of individual, leadership in organization, group dynamics, motivation and satisfaction. Many Public Administrations responded to this crisis of identity by returning to the fold of the mother science, namely, Political Science. But they discovered that they were not very much welcome to the home of their youth. Many political scientists began to argue that the true objective of teaching in the field was intellectualized understanding of the Executive, thus, reversing the objective laid down in 1914, namely, preparing ‘specialists for governmental positions’. There was also a talk of continued ‘dominion of Political Science over Public Administration’. The process of de-emphasis of Public Administration in the larger discipline of political science got, if anything, accelerated in the 1960s. In short, this period witnessed the spectacle of Political Science, not only not letting Public Administration separate itself from it, but also not fostering and encouraging its growth and development within its own field. Public Administration, naturally, was in search of an alternative and the alternative was available in the form of administrative science. Here, too, Public ‘Administration had to lose its distinctiveness and separate identity and merge with a larger field. The protagonists of this view held that administration is administration regardless of its setting, and it was on this premise that the journal Administrative Science Quarterly was founded in 1956, James G. March and Simon's Organizations, Cyert and Mareh’s A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, March's Handbook, etc., are among the important works inspired by this perspective. Fifth Stage : 1971-1990—Public Policy Perspective Despite the uncertainty and turmoil of the preceding period, Public inistrati i r id entered the Administration during period 1971-1990 registered progress and enters seventies with an enriched vision, Public Administration attracted within its fold42. Public Administration lines and thus was becoming truly interdisciplinary scholars from various disci n coming truly interdisciplina the social sciences, it is Public Administration which in its nature. Indeed, of all is most ‘Inter-disciplinary’. : It is focussing its attention more and more on the dynamics of administration, It is also drawing heavily on the management science. Public ‘Administration has come closer to policy science and related areas and has been showing ample concem for issues in the field, The evolutionary perspective must include an account of the New Public Administration Movement which marked a tuming point in the growth of the Public Administration as a discipline. In fact in the late 1960s some of the best of the younger generation of American scholars pioneered a new movement in American Public Administration which came to be known as the ‘New Public Administration’. The young scholars gathered at Minnowbrook under the patronage of Dwight Waldo. It was the time of turbulance when the young scholars vociferously demanded restoration of values and public purpose in government. Two books were produced to herald a new branch of Public Administration, named Frank Marini’s (ed) Towards A New Public Administration : The Minnowbrook Perspective in 1971 and Dwight Waldo’s (ed) Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence in 1971 The literature on New Public Administration lays emphasis on six major themes : relevance, values, equity, change, client focus and management worker relation. The detailed study is given in the next chapter of this book. Sixth Stage : 1991-onwards—Rowing to Steering (Recent Trends) The sixth period which began in the year 1991 were sown in the preceding one. The public bureaucracy was viewed as the society’s favourite solution to the problems confronting. The solution failed to feeling disillusioned with bureaucracy, leading at to search for its alternatives. The alternatives discovered are the market and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs). New Public Management and the civil society are the emerging new paradigims. New Public Management is discussed in chapter 7 of the present book. The book of Osborne and Gacbler published in 1992 entitled Reinventing Government was a remark- able work in the field of contemporary Public Administration which redefine the functions of Government.! In the age of Liberalisation, Globalisation and development of Information and Technology is having an impact on peoples lives, as well as on the every sphere of the governmental system. Because of this advandement, several concepts of Public Administration have also been developed in recent times. The recent trends of Public Administration is to include the new practice of following subjects : Managerialism, New Public Management, Market-based Public Administration, Entrepreneurial Government, Good Governance and E-Governance, Public-Private Partnership (PPP), etc. Conclusion—As an academic field, Public Administration’s evolution may thus be viewed as a succession of five over-lapping paradigms. Nicholas Henry includes the Politics-Administration dichotomy (1900-1926), Principles of Administration (1927-1937), Public Administration as a part of Political Science 1 Osbome, David and Gacbler, Ted, Reinventing Government; How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Transforming the Public Sector, Prentice Hall, New Delhi, 1992.6 NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION There has always been a controversy about the nature, scope, contents and ends of Public Administration. This controversy continued to persist till the late thirties of the 20th century when the germs of the new changes began to creep in. First one, the rigid and dogmatic separation between politics and administration was given up and it Was recognised that administrative process is permeated with politics, i.e., with manipulation of power and formulation of policy. Secondly, it came to be held that Public Administration as a science should be concerned with factual analysis or value analysis. The so-called principles of Public Administration are not true as they suffer from a confusion between what is and what ought to be. Thirdly, the goals of efficiency and economy came to be regarded as inadequate objective of administrative endeavour and replaced by the goal of social efficiency. Fourthly, an interdisciplinary study has given better insight into the social behaviour which has been responsible for a new orientation in the study of Public Administration. Fifihly, the psychological and sociological approach to Public Administration has revealed the inner springs and motivations of administrative behaviour and process which were beyond the reach of analytical behaviour and process and the analytical theories. Lastly, the philosophical concepts of pragmatism and logical positivism have influenced the study of Public Administration. Pragmatism lays stress on experience and makes workability or usefulness the test of truth. Logical positivism emphasies logical analysis, experience and secks to keep value and factual judgements apart. As a result of the above trends fresh ground was broken in the study of Public Administration and a new term New Public Administration gathered currently. Periods of turbulances, instability and confusion are often seen in history to produce new thought waves which seek to challenge the traditional contents of academic disciplines and thus impart to them new direction, sense and purpose. These new sets of ideas are sometimes so significant and they arc commemorated by imparting the adjective New. NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : ITS EVOLUTION In the late 1960s during the period of turbulance, instability and confusion some of the best younger generation of American scholars pioneered a new movement in American Public Administration which came to be known as the New Public Administration. The young academics, although nurtured and schooled in the era of positive government, were actually sensitive to the failings of American democracy. The scholars gathered at ‘Minnowbrook’ in the USA iNew Public Administration 47 under the patronage of Dwight Waldo and challenged the ‘givens’ of orthodox Public Administration and pluralist Political Science. It was a period of turbulance when the young, scholars fcrously demanded restoration of values and public purpose in government, Affected by the turbulence of the war in Vietnam and the urban riots, the younger generation expressed their concern about all institutions, especially government. ‘Two volumes were produced to herald a new branch of Public Administration, Since 1968 the vocabulary of Public Administration has been enriched by the emergence of what has come to be known as, ‘New Public Administration,” The term has come to a stay with the publication, in 1971, of Towards a New Public Administration ; Minnowbrook Perspective, edited by Frank Mar The literature of New Public Administration lays emphasis on six major themes : (i) relevance, (ii) values, (iii) equity, (iv) change, (v) client focus and (vi) management-worker relations. The major landmarks in the rise and growth of New Public Administration are as follows : 1, The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service, 1967. 2. The Philadelphia Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration, 1967. 3. The First Minnowbrook Conference, 1968. 4. Publication of the Books of Frank Marini and Dwight Waldo, 1971 5. The Second Minnowbrook Conference, 1988. 6. The Third Minnowbrook Conference, 2008. 1. The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service—1967 In 1966, an affiliate of the American Society for Public Administration asked Prof. John C. Honey of the Syracuse University to undertake an evaluative study of Public Administration as a field of study in the US Universities. The Honey Report, submitted in 1967! is significant in the sense that it disclosed the true state of health of the discipline of Public Administration. It sought to broaden the subject’s scope by making it conterminous with the total governmental process (executive, legislative, and judicial). It identified four problems confronting it and suggested immediate action on them : (1) Insufficient resources at disposal of the discipline (students, faculty and research funds); (2) Intellectual argument over the status of the discipline : Is it a discipline, a science, or profession ?; (3) Institutional weakness (inadequacy of Public Administration departments), and (4) Gap between scholars of Public Administration and the practising administrators. The Honey Report suggested that the scope of the study of subject should be broadened and it should be linked with the governmental processes. This report made the following eleven recommendations : 1.The establishment of a National Commission for Public Service Education to exert broad leadership in meeting the needs of governments for educated manpower. 1 The Honey Report and various commentaries on it have been published in Public Administration Review, Vol. XXVI, No. 4, November 1967.ZZ \ ) \ Verlet Labo tre a VR Matin LedniniNiivition A abatintial Hatlowihiy pragraninie (ner liape initiilly: 2,500 4 YOM) TOF pots Ava attoNbe He ane prepAr, Tor publie wervien We the matory amd dog Worn) Jovely ait abe iiolidingy preparation fie phatondanal deuroan J Tnvornaligy pragtaminon ty operate at federal stato, and toot teveli for pogte unitate atawtonty an! adyanood undorivaduaion proparing for publi wvryicg Tn 4A spooial followhip projeamme foe thoe planning, 1a become temohors jp sohools and pragramimon oF Piblio Adminbitiition and publie attains S.A pnramime (0 provide apportinition (hr protien! wovernmental exporie Nog to wniiversity Rioully cngaged Ih public alninn teaching, and: resenreh 6 A progam of aanitinee tO universities for publle affairs, curnieulap oyporimentation and: dovolapmiont 7 Support tiv univeraity pormonnel enpaped in reiearch on povernmontal and public ality daemon 8. Support thom fodoral stato, and local government, as wll ay from privatg, Anddustey, for tho provision of fueilition ta sehooky and programmes of Publig Adnvinistration and pubtio althirs 8. Tho establishment of an advisory norvioe for new public alliirs programmes ant the development of porsonnel rotors to provide current information on experienced graduatox of xehooki of Public Adminixtration and public affairs, 10 Te recommonded that a study: of tho universition and education for public Servicg bo undertaken, tho purposes to show how. various lypos of institutions: now approach thoiw public service, cdueational and other (aki and to idontity stimulative and innovative development ax woll ax doficioneies and problems, 1, The second major ancl clovely asnociated rexecarch proposal was for a study of the profossions, profossional cdueation and the public. service, Tho Honey Report aroused interest ax well aw comroyorsy in the United Statos, What is said was important but what it did not say carried even groater meaning, I for instance, said nothing about Public Administration's role ina Strifo-torn tumultuous society of the period, Did the discipline have nothing to Say about the curvont social problems 2 ‘The Report induced many scholars to think deeply about ity place and role inthe soololy and thus it ina way, weted as a catalyst in encouraging discussion on its adequacy in solving sociotal problems, 2. The Philadelphia C Administration-—1967 Bolioving that “thore have beon some rapid dovelopments inthe field and that a new synthesis or soloctive Appraisal would bo currently useful,’ the American Academy of Political and Social Sctences organised t contorence in Philadelphia in Decombor 1967 under tho Chairmanship of Jamiox C, Charlesworth, MW aimed at discussing on the topic: The Theory and Practice af Publie Administration ; Seope, Objectives and Methods, dames Cy Charlesworth, the chairman, thus doseribod the footings ot the participants, “The participants in this meeting evinced a mood to mako a bold and synoplig approach to the, discipline oF Public Administration and sought to sire tho importance of avin ference on the Theor eof Public and PracNew Public Administration 49 Public Adnsntration in a broad philosophic context and to consider whether it is an adornment of the mind as well as a practical instrument of government.’”! Varied were ihe views expressed by the participants. Public Administration was viewed as an academic discipline, as a ficld exercise, and as a profession, Some defined Public Administration as administration in the ‘Public Interest’ while others made it conterminous yyilh ‘Gor jernmental Administration’. There was emerged a broad” consensus on the following points 2 1. It is just as difficult to delineate the scope of Public Administration as it is to define it. v3 2, Public Administration agencies make policy and the policy administration dichotomy, is eroneoss..7 carnvet ‘3. American Public Administration as a discipline should deal restrictively with Public Administration in America, 4, Bureaucracy should be studied functionally as well as structurally. 5. Public Administration and Business Administration training should not be combined since they are similar only in unimportant aspects. 6. Public Administration as a profession should remain separate from the profession and discipline of political science. 7. Normative administrative theory as well as descriptive analytic theory in Public Administration is in a state of disarray. 8. A hierarchical/pyramidal view of organizational authority is no longer appropriate; administrators must view workers as ‘coordinates’ rather than ‘subordinates’. The executive is not so much on top as he is in the centre, being affected by ‘subordinates’ who surround him. 9. Policy and political considerations are replacing management ability as the major focus of concern in Public Administration. Computerised information is not good simply because it is computerised. 10, Administrators of the future should be trained in professional schools; Public ‘Administration curricula should emphasize not only administrative organization and procedures but also the “psychological, financial, sociological, and anthropological envelopment of the subject.” 11. Public Administration has not been able to deal with societal problems. Public Administration theory “has not caught up with emerging problems, like the huge nilitary industrial complex, riots, labour unions and strikes, public school conflicts, slums, the impingement of science, and developing countries.” 12. Public Administration is a discipline but it cannot employ all the methodologies of the contemporary social sciences. While parts of Public Administration are capable of using scientific methods, others—which are the most important parts of the discipline—are not amenable to scientific treatment. however, no ec definition of Public Administration, yet it There was, “ut least, of these views found fullthroated expression is significant that some, ‘Theory and Practice of Public Administration : Scope, Objectives 1 1arl : 7 [ Charlesworth, James C. (Ed) * TeerTican Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1968, p. ix and Methods, Philadelphia, The 2 Ibid., pp. 324-36.50 Public Administration in the Minnowbrook Conference, and thus viewed, the Philadelphia Conference could be credited with being a precursor, of the Minnowbrook event 3. The First Minnowbrook Co e568 } The genesis of the first Minnowbrook Conference lay in wo factors : Firs, the 1960s was a turbulent period besieged by numerous socictal problems, but Public Administration showed no signs of being aware of them, much less being | serious to solve them. This was well highlighted by Waldo’s article on Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence, published in Public Administration Review in 1968. Secondly, there was a need to hear young scholars and practitioners of the discipline as Public Administration was facing a kind of generation gap. | The Minnowbrook conference was held in 1968 at Minnowbrook, Syracuse University’s Conference Centre. Fifty young scholars-strictly under average age of 35 were gathered by Dwight Waldo to ‘redefine the focuses of Public Administration Theory.” The Minnowbrook Conference was the youth conference on Public Administration and it was this academic get-together which gave rise to what has come to be known as New Public Administration, According to many, New Public Administration was the product of New Left Caucus in action. It more emphasised on the normative approach in contrast to the traditional perception that Public Administration should be value neutral. The arguments were presented in the famous proceedings—Iowards a New Public Administration : The Minnowbrook Perspective. The Minnowbrook deliberations were summarised by Matthew Crenson : “Well, it might be useful to try to sum this up, and under Avo general headings. First, are there any common themes under all this smoke of discussion as reported to us; and second are they new ?”. “Those seem to put greater emphasis upon environmental factors, consequences for the environment of things in the organization of administration. The question is, of course, whether there is agreement on all these things, and if there is, whether that’s ‘new’.”! The keynote of New Public Administration is an intense sensitivity to and concern for the socictal problems of the day. Its parameters are relevance, post-positivism, morals, ethics, and values, innovation, concern for clients, social equality, otc. New Public Administration is, to quote Dwight Waldo, “some sort of movement in the direction of normative theory, philosophy, social concern and activism”. The proponents of New Public Administration express their dissatisfaction with the state of the discipline of Public Administration and want it to be alive to problems presented by the ‘turbulent times’. The advocacy for a post-positive approach emphasized the need to abandon value-free and value-neutral research and instead to cultivate an approach emphasizing social equity. This implies that they must become active agents of change and non-belicvers-in status quo. New forms of organization need to be carved out to suit the fast-changing environment. Emphasis is placed on cultivation of client-loyalty and programme-loyalty. The Marini, Frank (Ed.) : Toward New Public Administration; The Minnowbrook Perspective, ‘Scranton, Chandler Intext, 1971, p. 12.New Public Administration 51 ‘four basic themes of New Public Administration are : relevance, values, social equity and change. 4. Publication of the Books of Frank Marini and Dwight Waldo—1971 The First Minnowbrook ideas found wider circulation through the above mentioned fro works edited by Marini and Waldo respectively. Frank Marini’s Toward a New Public Administration : The Minnowbrook Perspective is the fir published work on New Public Administration and is thus a pioncer in the area. Its common themes are participation, consensus, decentralization, trust and love of mankind. Dwight Waldo’s Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence carries forward the Minnowbrook idea. At the 1969 annual conference of the American Political Science Association, a series of panel discussions were organized by him, his attempt being to catch the younger age group. Waldo’s work includes the papers presented at the conference. There has been no serious publication on New Public Administration since 1971. But several articles have been appeared. Some of these articles support the movement while others criticize, even denounce it. 5. The Second Minnowbrook Conference—1988 Exactly twenty years after the first Minnowbrook Conference, a second conference called—*Minnowbrook II’ was held on September 4, 1988 at the same facility i.e., Syracuse University s Conference Centre. Minnowbrook II was spearheaded by George Frederickson and was funded by three Universities—the Syracuse University, the University of Kansus and the University of Akron. This conference was attended by as many sixty scholars and practitioners of Policy Sciences i.e., History, Economics, Sociology, Political Science and Public Administration. The number of female participants in this conference were 14, whereas it was just one in Minnowbrook-. The Conference produced several papers that were published in edited journal symposia in the years following the conference, and a book entitled—Public Management in an Inter Connected World : Essay in the Minnowbrook Tradition. The discussions and debates continued to challenge the status quo of the Public ‘Administration research and. practice. According to George Frederickson, Minnowbrook I was contentious, confrontational and revolutionary while the event of twenty years later—Minnowbrook II was more civil, more practical and more perceptive to the contributions of the social and behavioural sciences, to Public Administration. Second Minnowbroo! the changing epochs of Public k conference was designed to compare and contrast ‘Administration. The two Minnowbrooks differed in respects of composition, tone and orientation, thematic emphasis and social environment, Minnowbrook II, thus, sought to establish its identity by focussing on the current and future vision of the ficld of Public Administration, However, the Minnowbrook II conference included many of the themes and areas of the Minnowbrook I. But, both the conferences shared concern for the State of the discipline of Public Administration, This ensured a continuity in thinking,$2. Public Administration MINNOWBROOK | AND MINNOWBROOK I : COMPARISON _Minnowhrook 1968) (i) Most of participants had political science background. Thus, its composition was narrow. (ii) Its mood, tone, temper and orienta- tion was contentious, confronta- tional, radical and revolutionary, It was change oriented (ii) Minnowbrook I emphasis on relevance, values social equity, change and client-focus (iv) It was decidedly anti-bchavioural (v) Minnowbrook I challenged Public Administration to make it pro- active 0 major social issues. (vi) It represented a well-intentioned but ovcrambitious optimism. Minnowbrook I (19%) Its composition was wide because participants had law, economies planning, policy studies and urban studies background Its mood, tone, temper and orientation was more civil, more-practical, more pragmatic, less radical and. more respectful to senior professionals. I laid emphasis on leadership, legal and constitutional perspective, technology policy and economic perspective. It was more perspective to the contribu- tions of the social and behavioural sciences to Public Administration. Its social environment was marked by a growing demand for retreat of the state in the forms of governmental cutback, privatisation, voluntarism, social capacity building. It retreated from an action perspective. It exuded pragmatism and confirmed the inevitability of government as a tool for strengthening society. 6. The Third Minnowbrook Conference—2008 The Third Minnowbrook Conference was held on September 3-7, 2008 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the original conference of 1968. This conference was spear co-ordinated by Prof. Rosemary O’ Leary, distinguished Professor, Syracuse University. Minnowbrook III was held at the same facility i¢., Syracuse University’s Conference Centre at Adirondack Mountains. Following the Minnowbrook legacy the organizers again gather 56 young scholars to discuss on the theme—The Fiuture of Public Administration, Public Management and Public Service around the World. It consisted of two phases : The first phase was 4’re Conference Workshop for emerging scholars nominated by senior scholars in the ficld at an age that barcly surpasses the original bar of 35. The second phase was a larger and more traditional conference attended by the participants from 13 countries. A book reflecting the best outcomes of Minnowbrook II] was produced. The book titled The Future of Public Administration Around the World : The Minnowbrook Perspactive was published in 2010, which was edited by Prof. Rosema O'Leary, David Van Slyke and Soonhee Kim, all professors from Synacuse University. The Minnowbrook Conferences may rightly be credited with the honour of having produced the first coherent grammar of New Public Administration. It was this conference which expressed, very loudly, and clearly the dissatisfaction with the state of the discipline. It w the first one which sought to give a new image to PublicNew Public " dninseaion a sje ublic Administration 53 of reformist intentions. GOALS OF NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRA‘ According to Robert T. Golembiewski, the f } New Public Administ yj Galembiensi, the following anti-goals stand out in definition of public administration as “value free" srcetinn eich means rejecting a determinist view of human, and rejecting definition cf Public Ade cea atl perhaps not properly involved in policy (as wee the ae of hs ublic Administration that was dichotomy): Gi) IU is antteclmeal fare, aso wil h naive politics administration mankind is being sacrificed 10 the logie of the machine aad the one reative more of less anti-bureaucratic and antichierarchical. ns '” S20™: and (ii) tis New Public Administration is sti veld serious publication on New Public Adwinie rage ee od re has boon no Minnowbrook II participants developed a book enitled ve Public Manag enn developed a book entitled as Public Management in an Inter Connected World : Essays in the Minnowbrook Tradition edited t Timmey Bailey and Richard T. Mayer. cated any amt Tatk Marini and others summarizes the themes and goals of New Public 1. Relevance : The theme of relevance is i i original quest. Public Administration has traditionally been intersted in eftroence and economy. The demand of new Public Administration was to deal icity with the political and administrative implications of administrative action. It demands meaningful studies oriented toward the realities of social life. In this matter, some important questions raised at Minnowbrook I were : (What standards of decision do we select, which questions ought to be studied and now to study them ? (i) What defines our questions and priorities for us ? ii) To what extent are we aware of the social and moral implications of knowledge in Public Administration ? (iv) What are the uses of Public Administration as a social and political science ? (0) Does Public Administration yield knowledge weft cetin asain society and not to others ? 2. Values : The New Public Administration rejects the value—neutral stand taken by the management-oriented Public Administration. It makes clear that the new movement advocate openness about the values being served through administrative action. Frederickson has said that the New Public Administration should be less ‘generic’ and more ‘public’, less ‘descriptive’, and more “prescriptive”, less “institution oriented” and more lintimpat-orientd es “neta, and more ‘normative’, and no less “sciemific’ 3. Social Equi social equity should be the objective of public administration. Social equity’ means that public administration should become champions of the under priviledged sections of the society. They should use their discretion in administering the programmes to protect and promote the interests of the poor. The purpose of public action should be the reduction of economic and social disparities and the enhancement of life opportunities for all the social groups inside and outside the organization. : 4. Change : The New Public Administration emphasizes thatthe public officials should become active agents of social change and hot belives in status-quo, It suggests 1 Frederikson : Towards a New Public Administration in Marini (ed), op. ett actively concerned with the problems of the society and full ON : According to New Public Administration, the realization of54 Public Administration ‘administrative machinery for bringing, about social transformation, i exibility and organizational adaptability should be built jy tem to meet the environment changes. Mobit Bhattacharya hay the cause of social cquily is to actively work for so al change Tic Administration. ‘The attack is on the status-quo ang in permanent institutions. ‘The Minnowbrog, lising, change and remedying, the burcaucrati innovations in f 9 advised that operational fl the administrative rightly said, “to serv ‘This is the motto of New Publ against the powerful interests entrenched participants explored way's of institutional tendencies of big organizations.” The New Public Administration advocates a clicnt focusseg $, Client-focus I approach. It stresses not only on providing goods and services to the clicnts but aly hhow and when and what is to be provided. It requires positive giving them a voice in v ( f proactive and responsive administrators rather than authoritarian and ivory-towe bureaucrats. we : i 6 Management-Worker Relations : The New Public Administration emphasises on good and cordial relations between the management and workers. It is in thy opinion of NPA that there should be equal emphasis both on efficiency and human, considerations for management and workers. The new approach has to satisfy bot the efficiency and the human relations criterion in order to achieve success. Note : The New Public Administration provides solutions for achieving thes goals, popularly called 4Ds i.e. (1) Decentralization, (2) Debureeucratization, (3) Delegation, and (4) Democratization. FEATURES OF NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION According to Robert Golemiewski five features of New Public Administration are as follows : 1. It implies a view of mankind as being substantially malleable and potentially perfective. In its vision people are in the process of becoming and growing, This view contrasts with that of people as a constant factor of production. 2. Its main theme is the demand for relevance. It stresses the central rolt of personal and organizational values or ethics. 3. It advocates social equity as the most conmon vehicle for guiding the tas of human development, Administrative valuc-neutrality is neither possible nor desirable 4, It is determinedly rational as against the classical Public Administration’! emphasis on organizations and their internal processes. 5, It places a definite emphasis on innovation and change. Dwi uht Waldo identified three features of New Public Administration namely’ 1 Clicnt-oriented burcaucracy. 2. Representative bureaucracy. 3. People’s particip* tion in administration, . Frederickson called the New Public Administration as second generatio! behaviouralism. In the words of Nigro and Nigro, ‘Clicnt-focusscd administration ! recommended along with deburcaucratisation, democratic decision-making al decentralization of administrative process in the interest of more effective and hum? delivery of public services,”” CRITICAL EVALUATION : The cri ics of the doctrine of New Public Administration as.qunli-positivis anti-theoretic and anti-management Campbell argues that “it differs from ! 1 Bhattacharya, Mohit : Public Administration, The World Presi Private Ltd, 1993, p. 16New Public Administration 55 old Public Administration only in what it is responsive to a different set of societal problems from those of other periods.” Robert T. Golembiewski considers it as a temporary or transitional phenomena and thought that wisdom might be to simple al The WS memory to further fade away. Carter and Duffey doubts, whether the social equity is actually getting recognised as an established objective of public administration, apart from the prevailing objectives of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.” Further, the critics opine that the protagonists of New Public Administration are trying (o arrogate to the Public Administration what actually fails within the logitimate sphere of political institutions, political processes and political leadership. There is lack of skills and technologies to implement what New Public Administration visualises. Critics also fear that the concept of social equality is vague. The New Public Administration has not yet developed a theory of its own. Inspite of the above criticisms and limitations, in the words of Nigro and Nigro, “the New Public Administration has seriously jolted the traditional concepts and outlook of the discipline and enriched the subject by importing a wider perspective and by linking it closely to the society. Further, it has certainly broken fresh ground and impared new substance to the discipline of public administration. What is new in it is the advocacy of social equality role recommended for the administrater.”’! The classical values of Public Administration are efficiency, economy, productivity and centralisation. Now Public fosters a new set of values. It advocates iumanism, decentralisation, delegation, pluralism, personal growth, individual dignity etc. One may in the end conclude that the classical values of Public Administration like efficiency, economy etc., are not entirely irrelevant. What is being suggested is that Public Administration merely committed to efficiency and economy can still perpetuate injustice, inequality and poverty. Here lies the significance of New Public Administration. Trade-offs between the classical values and the new urges must be arrived as H. George Frederickson has rightly observed that the importance of productivity, efficiency and economy cannot be denied. But he asserts : “‘The most productive government can still perpetuate poverty, inequality of opportunity and injustice. Both the classic bureaucratic model and the neo-bureaucratic model: (of H.- Simon, with focus on decision-making) offer little to offset these tendencies. Therefore, modern Public administration must search for theories and norms consistent with what Vincent Ostrain, calls ‘democratic administration.’? What therefore J. Rawls calls as “Beyond ballot box democracy’” entails a heavy re-structuring of Public Administration, especially in terms of its orienting values, _ : In conclusion, it can be said that New Public Administration has certainly broken fresh ground and imparted new substance to the discipline. It has some radical contents but these can be successfully implemented only by legislative and political will. Notwithstanding its limitations and weaknesses, New Public Administration has seriously jolted the traditional concepts and views of the discipline and has enriched the subject by importing a larger perspective and by linking it closely to the society. This is no small gain. At the same time, it is too unrealistic to portray New Public Administration in very heroic can aa See is still largely’ derivative in ils nature, not sufficiently rooted in the indigenous soil igre 1 Modern Public Admnistrauon, pe 35. ; 2 Nee an Ne ane Admmisiration, th, Tata Mergraw Will, New Deli, p. 40, 2 Laxmi Kanth, M : Publ13 COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION - MEANING AND SCOPE traditional and new literature on the subject of public administration. New Public Administration came into being after second world war. Similarly, Development Administration also was the product of world war second. As a sub-field Comparative Public Administration cannot claim a long. history. Comparative Public Administration has been widened and dependedly scholarly interest in the administration of third world countries, specially after world war Il. FACTORS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF COMPARATIVE | | The Second World War is generally regarded as dividing line between the PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION The factors that contributed to the growth of the Comparative Public Administration are : (1) New scientific, theoretical and technological developments influenced the structures of administration stimulating interest in the Comparative Public Administration. (2) The revisionist movement in comparative Politics due to dissatisfaction with the traditional approaches. (3) Exposure of American scholars and administrators to the new features | of the administrative systems of developing countries during the second world war period. (G) The emergence of newly free Third World Countries which attempted to achieve rapid socio-economic development, creating opportunities for scientific investigation, | (5) New intellectual developments in comparative sociology, anthropology, political science and other areas stimulated the students of discipline to develop theoretical constructs with a cross-cultural, cross-national angle in their field. (6) The extension of American foreign aid programmes both political and economic, to newly developing countries. (7) The rise of behavioural approach in Public Administration as a reaction to the classical approach.Comparative Public Administration : Meaning and Scope 91 COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMN. : MEANING AND DEFINITIONS The Sindy of Comparative Public Administration has been developed as the subject matter of Public Administration belonging to different cultural and geographical setting and different periods. Infact certain thinkers, particularly in the USA are developing the subject matter of Comparative Public Administration. _ The CAG (Comparative Administration Group) has defined Comparative Public Administration as, “the Public Administration applied to diverse cultures and national setting and the body of factual data, by which it can be examined and tested.” Accordingly to Jong S. Jun, “Comparative Public Administration has been predominantly cross-cultural and cross-national in orientation.” In the words of Robert H. Jackson, “Comparative Public Administration is that phase of the study of Public Administration which is concerned with making rigorous-cross-cultural comparisons of the structures and processes involved in the activity of administrating public affairs.” According to A. H. Tyagi, “Comparative Public Administration is a discipline which uses empirical tools of comparison to study the total matters of Public Administration irrespective of time, place or cultural variables.”! Ferrel Heady defines that these five ‘motivating concerns” have been addressed by the Comparative Public Administration : (i) The search for theory; (ii) The rage for practical application; ii) The incidental contribution of the broader field of comparative politics; (iv) The interest of researchers trained in the tradition of administrative law; and (v) The comparative analysis of ongoing problems of Public Administration. Thus, in short, through Comparative Public Administration, we learn about the administrative practices followed in various nations and then we can endeavour to adopt these practices which can fit in our nation and system. COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP : CAG The most important contribution to the growth of Comparative Public ‘Administration came from the Comparative Administrative Group (CAG), established in 1963 as a Committee of the American Society for Public ‘Administration, founded in 1939. The well known scholars associated with CAG were Fred Riggs, Alfred Diamant, Ferrel Heady, Dwight Waldo, John Montgomary, Martin Landau, and others. Fred Riggis considered ‘as the father of Comparative Public Administration. He was the chairman of CAG for one decade (1960-1970). The CAG supports and sponsors research, seminars, conferences and works for the improvement of teaching materials and approaches. It serves te a communication link between the scholars and practitioners concerned with development administration, The CAG has done commendable work in various fields. The CAG in the words of Prof. R, Arora has “widened 1 Tyagi AH. : Public Administration : Principles & Pracices, Atma Ram & Sons, New Delhi 1999, p. 90.92 Public Administration the horizons of public administration, it has opened the doors oF Aiscplng to all kinds of social scientists... has made the scope of the fie! ‘ more systematic by studying different administrative systems in their ecological settings, and has stimulated interest on ate part of its members in the problems of development administration. Se omparative Public Administration got real impetus in when it fetal ne ‘inancial help from the Ford Foundation. The CAG developed a programme with three objectives {i to encourage research in Comparative Public Administration; ) {0 encourage teaching in Comparative Public Administration: and Gi) t0 contribute to more effective public policy formulation in the field of development administration FEATURES OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Prof. Mohit Bhattacharya in his book New Horizons of Public Administration has mentioned some features of Comparative Public Administration.2 First, it is a relatively young sub-field that emerged after world ‘war second. Second. there are competing and diverse approaches to the study of Comparative Public Administration which is duc to different disciplinary contributions, Third, Riggs could note more and more homothetic and ecological | approaches, indicating thereby application of scientific rigour to analysis. Fourth, the field that has been dominated by American scholars due mainly to Ford Foundation’s Support, as also due to the American scholars deep interest | in the newly independent nations in their culture, Politics and administration, Fifth, Comparative Public Administration motivational concerns theory-building and adminis countries Ferrel Heady has distin traditional, (ii) development ori range theory formulation 3 The study of Comparative Public Administrati | levels : (1) Macro,(2) Middle, and (3) Micro. } (1) Macro Studies focus on the comparisons of whole administrative systems in their proper ecological approach, (2) Middle Range Studies relate to certain iny system that are sufficiently large in size and s (3) Micro Studies, on the other hand, relate to an analysis of a small part of an administrative system. A micro study may relates to comparisons of an individual organization with its counterparts in other settings, could be seen having two basic trative problems of the developing guished four important foci of research init : ()) modified ented, (it) general system model building, and (jv) middle- portant parts of an administrative cope of functioning, 1 Arora, R. K, Comparative Public Administration : An Ecological Perspective; Associated Publishing ~ House, N. Delhi, 1979 pp. 20-21 2 Bhattacharya, Mohit : op., cit, p. 294 9 Heady, Feel: Puc Acninisraion = A Comparatve Perspective, Pros Hall, 1966, pp 9-13Comparative Public Administration : Meaning and Scope 93 OBJECTIVES OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Riggs stated that the objectives of Comparative Public Administration have a combination of empirical and normative concerns which are reflected in the literature of Comparative Public Administration analysis. According to him, the Comparative Public Administration has the purposes given below : (1) To learn the distinctive features of a particular system or cluster of systems, (2) To explain the factors responsible for cross-national and cross- cultural differences in bureaucratic behaviour. (3) To examine the causes for the success or failures of particular administrative features in particular ccological settings (4) To understand strategics of administrative reform According to R. T. Golembiewski, ‘‘Comparative Public Administration cemphasies that (1) organizations must be viewed as embedded in specific cultures and political settings, (2) the principles of Public Administration are seriously inadequate, (3) both the study and practice of administration are pervasively value- loaded and (4) any proper discipline must have complementary pure and applied aspects.” SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Woodrow Wilson in his essay The Study of Administration visualised the scope of the comparative studies in Public Administration. He felt that such comparative studies were necessary— (1) to see whether any administrative institutions can be transplanted from other countries to the US administration; and (2) to see whether administrative processes in the USA were relevant to other countries. Thus, to Wilson, the scope of Comparative Public Administration would be to use it for the practical purpose of introducing administrative reforms in different countries based on the experience of other countries. The scope of Comparative Public Administration can briefly be summarized as follows : 1. It studies different administrative system in their ecological settings; 2. Emphasises empirical study based on rigorous methods, such as field observations; 3. Has developed on the inter-disciplinary orientation; 4. Lays stress on the interaction between administration and socio-economic, cultural and political phenomena; and 5. Has widened the horizons of the discipline by making it broader, deeper and useful. IMPORTANCE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Comparative Public Administration stands for cross-cultural and cross- national Public Administration. It has fvo basic motivational concerns : (® theory building; and / (ii) administrative problems of the developing countries16 THEORIES OR APPROACHES OF ORGANIZATION As a subject of study, Public Administration has been everybody's field The practising administrators and academics of all sorts have something to say on one or the other aspects of administration. In fact a coherent, concentrated and organised body of knowledge on Public Administration is still evolving Therefore, the state of theory under such circumstances cannot be expected to be satisfactory. It is this discomforting situation that Public Administration has so far not develop a systematic body of theory. There are many theories of Public Administration but no general theories of subject have emerged as yet. In this context Rumki Basu writes, “the theories which are discussed in this chapter deal with things bigger and smaller than public administration, but not with public administration itself.”! Fred N. Kerlinger defines theories as “a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions that presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena.” Theories are attempts to accurately describe and to successfully predict, relationships among elements of the physical, social, and psychological world. There are as many as six theories or approaches of organization : The Classical Theory. . The Scientific Management Theory. The Bureaucratic Theory. The Human Relations Fheory. The Behavioural Theory. . The System Theory. I, THE CLASSICAL THEORY The Classical Theory is also known by various names, like, the Administrativ’ Theory, the Traditional Theory, the Formal Organization Theory, !’ Mechanistic Theory, the Structural Theory, and the Universalist Approach AWwEYNE 1 Rumki Basu, Public Administration, Concepts and Theories, N. Delhi, 1994, p. 105.sess Theories or Approaches of Organization 133 cue ten is the dominant ‘one in the ficld and has been enunciated notable by Henry Fayol, L. Gulick, L. F, Urwiek, J. D. Mooney, A. C. Rei 7 parker Follett, R. Shelton, ctc. ‘Tl 1 J.D. Moonoy, A. C. Reiley, Mary titled Papers i" his theory reached its zenith in 1937 when the Coe i _ Be t on the Science of Administration, by Gulick and Urwik was published. This book is the most pursuasive exposition of the classical approach to administration. These writers argue that administration is administration regardless of an of work being undertaken or the context within which it is performes hey then proceed to identify the important clements in the processes of administration as well as features common to all administrative structures. This exercise is preparatory to the development of a set of principles of organization. Indeed, the single most distinguishing feature of the classical theory is its concern with the formulation of principles of organization. The Classical theorists addressed themselves to the task of discovering the true bases on which division of work in an organization could be carried out. and devising effective methods of bringing about co-ordination in it. They moreover laid emphasis on precise definition of tasks and their interrelationships, and advocated the use of authority and system of checks, to exercise control over personnel so that the organizational work gets done. Unlike Taylor’s Scientific Management which focused on efficiency at the shop floor of the organization, the Classical Theory is a broader approach to organization. It is concerned with the formal organization structure as well as the process of administration (management). Division of labour is the central tenet of classical theory. This theory, like the Scientific Management advocates the concept of economic man. The central theme of Classical Theory of organization was summarised by Gulick and Urwick in their Papers on the Science of Administration. They said, “It is the general thesis of this paper that there are principles which can be arrived at inductively from the study of human organization which should govern arrangements for human association of any kind. These principles can be studied as a technical question, irrespective of the purpose of the enterprise, the personnel comprising it, or any constitutional, political or social theory underlying its creation.” Evaluation of the Classical Theory ‘The Classical Theory of organization is made explicit in organization charts, rule books, manuals, rules of procedures, etc. It deals with what is called formal organization—an organization which is deliberately and rationally designed to fulfil the objectives of an organization, The Classical Theory treats an organization as a closed system, completely unconnected with, and wninfluenced. by its external environment. It is more concerned with what ought to be, and this kept it away from the study of actual behaviour in organizations. It underestimated the human factor and oversimplified the human motivations. Besides, although this theory set out to develop principles of organization, they were, according to critics, no better than merc ‘proverbs’, hardly providing any meaningful guidance to scholars and practitioners of the subject. ical Theory has made major contributions Despite these limitations, the Class to administration which cannot be ignored. In the first place, this theory played134 Public Administration 4 notable role in rationalizing and even stimulating production. Secondly, ix = this theory which first propounded the idea that administration itscit vas Separate activity, and was worthy of intellectual investigation. Thirdly, it formulated a set of concepts in administration and cvolved a terminology Whig has. provided a base for subsequent researches in this field. Fourthly limitations of this theory stimulated further researches in organizational behavioy, thus becoming an important milestone in the development of organization theories. Finally, its thinkers developed administration into a science, A. Contribution of Henry Fayol Let us begin with Henry Fayol (1841-1925), the French engineer, regarded as the father of classical theory. His book entitled General and Industri, Management was first published in France in 1916 and its English translation Was published in 1929, it is a classic treatise and according to Urwick this book “has probably had more influence on the ideas of business management in Europe and especially in the Latin Countries than any other work.”! According to Fayol, knowledge of administration rather than technical knowledge is needed at higher levels of an organization, He defined the primary function of administration as : 1. To plan, 2. To organise both men and materials, 3. To command or to tell the subordinates what to’ do, 4. To co-ordinate, and To control. The contribution of Fayol to the growth of classical administrative thought can be studied under three heads : 1. Industrial Activities : Fayol divided the activities of an industrial understanding into six groups : (1) Technical, (2) Commercial, (3) Financial, (4) Security, (5) Accounting, (6) Administrative, 2. Elements of Administration : According to Fayol, the elements of functions of administration are as follows (1) Forecasting and Planning, (2) Organizing, (3) Commanding, (4) Co-ordinating, and (5) Controlling, 3. Principles of Administration : Henry Fayol propounded 14 principles ~ of organization, which are given follows : (1) Division of work or labour (2) Authority and Responsibility, (3) Discipline, (4) Unity of Command, (5) Unity of Direction, (6) Subordination of Individual Interests to General Interest, (7) Remuneration, (8) Centralisation and Decentralisation, (9) Scalar Chain, (10) Order, eee 1 Unwick, L., The Elements of Administration, London, Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1943, p. 16.Theories or Approaches of Organization 135 (1D Equity, (12) Stability of Tenure, (13) Initiative, and (14) Esprit de Corps (Harmony or Union is. strength). B. Contribution of Gulick and Urwick The most comprehensive emunciation of the Classical Theory is contained in Papers on the Science of Administration (1937), edited by Luther Gulick and L. Urwick, Gulick summed up the principles of organization in the word ‘POSDCORB™. cach letter of which stands for a particular function. To quote Gulick, “POSDCORB" is made up of initials and stands for the following activities : P : Planning, that is working out in broad outline the things that need to be done and the methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise. O : Organizing, that is, the establishment of the formal structure of authority through which work sub-divisions are arranged, defined and co-ordinated for the defined objective. S : Staffing, that is, the whole personnel function of bringing in and training the staff and maintaining favourable conditions of work. D : Directing, that is, the continuous task of making decisions and embodying them in specific and general orders and instructions and serving as the leader of the enterprise. Co : Co-ordinating, that is, the all important duty of interrelating the various parts of work. R : Reporting, that is, keeping those, to whom the executive is responsible, informed as to what is going on, which thus includes keeping himself and his subordinates informed through records, research and inspection. B : Budgeting, with all that goes with budgeting in the form of fiscal planning, accounting and control Gullick also enumerates fen principles of organization : (J) Division of Work, (6) Decentralization (2) Span of Control, (7) Co-ordination through Committees, (3) Bases of Departmental Organization, (8) Delegation, (4) Co-ordination through to hierarchy, (9) Unity of Command, and (5) Deliberate Co-ordination, (10) Line and Staff. C. Contribution of Mooney and Reiley James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley’s Onward Industry is a pioneering work on the development of Classical Theory which was published in 1931 in America. In 1939, this book was published with its, new title as The Principles of Organization. They enunciated the following four principles of organization : (1) Co-ordinative Principle, (3) Division of Labour Principle and (2) Scalar or hierarchical Principle, (4) Line and Staff Principle.136 Public Administration According to this theory, organization is a formal structure of plan, amenable to creation in accordance with clearly understood principle, much likg the plan of a building, prepared in advance by the architect according to some Principles. This concept stems from fio beliefs, namely—(1) there is a body of principles in accordance with which organization plan can be spelled out to fit into the requirements of the chosen purpose or activity, and (2) the requisite personnel must meet the requirements of this preconceived plan. It may, thus, be seen that this theory views organization as a machine, considering the human beings who run it as mere cogs. The organization i, established and supported by authority and can be set out, although imperfectly, on a chart or diagram. It is normally the dominant set of work relationships, [, is marked by an almost exclusive attention to the problems of the structure in the role’s relations, i.e., activities and tasks laid down to ensure the most effective and efficient organization. Focus is thrown, not on the human beings as such. but on the role as it (ie., the role) relates to other roles in the context of the organizational objective. This theory manifests four features—(i) impersonality,’ (ii) division of work, (iii) hierarchy, and (iv) efficiency. Further, it is marked by the following six philosophical characteristics : (1) It is atomistic in the sense that it sees the individuals in isolation from fellowmen. (2) It is mechanistic. It does not explain the dynamics of organizational behaviour. (3) It is static (4) It is voluntaristic. It rests upon the naive belief that the individuals are immune from the control either by the groups or by social factors, (5) It is rationalistic. By rational behaviour it means performance of task according to method determined by the principles of scientific work performance. (6) It does not take any note of noneconomic incentives. IL THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT THEORY The first coherent theory of organization is referred to as ‘Scientific Management’, which came to be formulated in the beginning of the twentieth century. At that time, the conditions in the factories were rather unplanned. There was nearly complete absence of standardization of methods of work. The workers were left entirely to themselves in the matter of choosing the methods to be employed for doing the work. Not only this, they even used to bring their own tools for doing the work. Whether these methods were the efficient ones, and whether the tools were of the right kinds, were none of the responsibilities of management, It was against such a general background of managerial tunconeern for methods and tools of work that Scientific Management emerged as a new philosophy of management. Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915), an engineer by training, is regarded as the father of Scientific Management, for it was he who first Sane 1 In the sense that job is independent of its incumbent,Theories or Approaches of Organization 137 advocated the systematic adoption of the methods of ssionee to problems of management in the interest of higher industrial efficiency. Taylor himself did not employ Scientific Management’ to refer to his thoughts. This concept was first used by Louis D. Brandics in 1910. Some of the other contributors of this approach are Frank Gilberth and Lillian Gilberth, Harrinton, Emerson, Henry L. Gantt, H. P. Kendell and many others. From that time onwards Taylor also began using this term. He pointed out : “Management is a true science, resting upon clearly fixed laws, rules and principles, as a foundation.” He argued that management comprised a number of principles which commanded applicability in all types of organizations. Meaning of Scientific Management The term Scientific Management contains vo words i.¢., ‘Scientific’ and “Management”. Here, the term Scientific means ‘systematic, analytical and objective approach’ while the term Management stands for ‘getting the things done through others.’ Hence, Scientific Management is based upon careful observation, objective analysis and innovative outlook. It is the art of knowing exactly what is to be done and the best way of doing it. Scientific techniques are applied in methods of work, recruitment, selection and training of workers. Scientific Management implies the acceptance and application of the methods of scientific investigation for the solution of the problems of industrial management. Peter F. Drucker writes, “The core of Scientific Management is the organized study of work, the analysis of work into the simplies elements and the systematic improvement of the worker’s performance of each element.” In the words of F. W. Taylor, “Scientific Management means knowing exactly what you want to do by workmen and looking at that they do it in the best and the cheapest way.” ‘Thus, Scientific Management involves a certain combination of elements which have not exited in the past, namely old knowledge so collected, analysed, grouped and classified into laws and rules that it constitutes science. It is also a new division of duties between the two sides and intimate, friendly co-operation to an extent that is impossible under the philosophy of old management. Aims and Objectives of the Theory The overall goal of Scientific Management is higher industrial efficiency, but this is also the goal of other theories. What distinguishes Scientific Management from other approaches is its assumptions, specific objectives, and techniques. Taylor, whose thoughts go under the name of Scientific Management, made two assumptions, namely : to organizational problems leads 1. the application of the methods of science to higher industrial efficiency; observation, comparison are these methods; and “1 ties > the incentive of high wages will promote the mutuality of interest between workers and managers which, in its tum, willslead. to higher productivity. Besides, several specific objectives are embodied in Scientific Management: 1. It, for instance, seeks Standardization of working conditions—such as, the best temperature and humidity for achieving productivity. measurement and experimental