II.

THE CONCEPTS OF TRADITIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION,

DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION AND NEW PUBLIC
ADMINITRATION
Comparative Analysis of Traditional Public Administration and the New Public
Administration

TRADITIONAL PUBLIC NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATION
Dichotomy between politics and
administration
Centralization and Control
Administrative neutrality
Efficiency and productivity
Reactive problem solving, change and
learning
Comprehensive rational planning
Emphasis on influence of special interest
group
Emphasis on expert’s role in policy analysis
Vertical coordination and authority relation
Organizational growth with affluent
resources
Information accumulation
Inter- relationship of politics and
administration
Decentralization and participation
Ethical Responsibility
Effectiveness in problem solving
Proactive problem solving, change and
learning
Participative Social Planning
Emphasis on pluralistic and participatory
democracy
Emphasis on citizen’s participation in
community problem solving
Horizontal collaboration and human
networking
Achieving excellence with limited resources
Information sharing and networking

The main focus of Traditional public administration is economy, efficiency, and value free
administration. Historically, during the Industrial revolution , the needs and demands of the
organization were more inward-looking, hence, the principles and assumptions of classical
Public administration best fit to the management style of that time.

DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
 After World War Two, many former colonized countries were able to obtain
independence from their colonial masters. In the 1950’s – 60’s a new paradigm emerged
that aims to help these newly independent countries achieved economic progress and
stable governance . Development Administration, a mutation of traditional public
administration was applied to these countries, including the Philippines.( Irving
Rio,DPA).
 The Concept of development administration was coined by Goswami in 1955 and
popularized by Riggs and Weidner. This concept of development is directed to the
developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Its orientation is western and
heavily influenced by scientific management and post- World War Two reforms in
countries ravage by war. Development administration infused the Asian, African, and
Latin American countries with western capital, technology, and management tools.
Development administration became closely linked to foreign aid and western models of
development (Nef and Dwivedi,1981)
 As to purpose, development administration aims to stimulate and facilitate national
development, implement policies and programs that are determined by the people, and
introduce change and innovative structures and processes that will help achieve the goals
of development. Because, it is concerned with the involvement of the people in
development, the bureaucracy it established pledges its loyalty to the people through
their elected representatives. In terms of attitude, development administration is positive,
persuasive, innovative, and outward – looking (Gant, 1979)
NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
 The 1970’s was characterized by massive technological advancements and economic
growth in the United States. But, despite this environment, many American remained
poor, unemployed and illiterate or poorly educated. Scholars were starting to question the
relevance and responsiveness of traditional public administration that deprived many
Americans of “quality life”. A new paradigm emerges that aims to make public
administration truly responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.
 The New Public Administration led by H. George Frederickson heavily criticized the
value- neutral stance of traditional public administration that alienated the less-privileged
groups in society.
 According to its proponents, public administrators should not be neutral, they should be
committed to both good management and social equity as values to be achieved. At the
heart of the New Public Administration doctrine is the principle of social equity which
seeks to redress the deprivation of the minority. New Public Administration called on
public officials to abandon the façade of neutrality and instead use their discretion to
protect and promote the welfare of the disadvantaged groups. It called for a client-
oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures, participatory decision –making,
decentralized administration, and advocate-administrators. (Adapted from the Notes of
Irving Rio, DPA).

New Public Management and

Reinventing Government (1980s to 1990s)

The new public management (NPM) movement had long been practiced by the European
countries in the late 1970s and 1980s but the term NPM was essentially launched by several
luminaries such as Christopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley
(1992), among others in the early 1990s. Similar movements such as reinventing government and
reengineering also emerged around the same time.
The new public management (NPM) movement had long been practiced by the European
countries in the late 1970s and 1980s but the term NPM was essentially launched by several
luminaries such as Christopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley
(1992), among others in the early 1990s. Similar movements such as reinventing government and
reengineering also emerged around the same time.
One of the best examples of the NPM praxis can be seen in New Zealand’s administrative
reforms. Their government privatized substantial public functions, redeveloped their personnel
system to become more performance-oriented, instituted new processes of productivity
measures, and reengineered departmental systems to reflect government’s commitment
(Denhardt 2004: 136-137 citing Boston 1996).
In the US, during the administration of US President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore,
this concept was reflected in their “National Performance Review” which urged the federal
government to improve its performance and led to the foundation of the praxis of reengineering
government. Parenthetically, NPM was justified by Lynn (1996) in his article, “Public
Management as Art, Science, and Profession.”
NPM according to Pollitt is a shift to a “managerialist” movement. He then identified five core
beliefs of managerialism: (1) the main route to social progress lies in the achievement of
continuing increases in economically defined productivity; (2) such productivity increase will
mainly come from the application of ever more sophisticated technologies; (3) the application of
these technologies can only be achieved with a labor force disciplined in accordance with the
productivity ideal; (4) management is a separate and distinct organizational function and one
that plays the crucial role in planning, implementing and measuring the necessary improvements
in productivity; and (5) to perform this crucial role, managers must be granted reasonable “room
to maneuver” (i.e., right to manage”
The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government” were essentially born out
of the continuing search for solutions to economic problems in the 1970s and to produce a
government that “works better but costs less”

Reinventing Government (1990S)

 The idea of “reinventing government” was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992.
 Their concept of NPM was sparked by the use of business model prescriptions for
government, i.e., using private sector innovation, resources, and organizational ideas to
improve the public sector.

TEN PRINCIPLES OF RE-INVENTING GOVERNMENT

 Catalytic Government – Steering rather than rowing
 Community- Owned Government – Empowering rather than serving
 Competitive Government – Injecting competition in service delivery
 Mission – Driven Government – Transforming rule- driven government
 Results- Oriented Government – Funding outcomes rather than Inputs
 Customer – Driven Government – Meeting the Customers Needs, not bureaucracy
 Enterprising Government – Earning rather than Spending
 Anticipatory Management – Prevention rather than cure
 Decentralized Government – From Hierarchy to Participatory and Teamwork.
 Market – Oriented – Leveraging change through the market.

Re- engineering organizations

Reengineering, or the so-called "business process reengineering" (BPR), was essentially an
innovation that sought to refurbish the organization’s operation, management system and
structure, to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive ability and ultimately
improve service delivery. Reengineering seems to be an effective way to upgrade the services
of governmental agencies; however, it continues to hurdle obstacles and challenges in applying
the formula such as fiscal constraints and the traditional thinking of political leaders.
PA as Governance (the 1990s into the 2000s)
Governance" entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning. Though the term “governance” has
been used to refer mostly to “government,” when correctly used, “governance” really goes
beyond government.
The Asian Development Bank defines it as the "institutionalization of a system through which
citizens, institutions, organizations, and groups in a society articulate their interests, exercise
their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective good" (ADB 1995 as cited
in ADB 2005: 1).
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) describes "governance" as “the exercise
of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It embraces all
of the methods–good and bad–that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources
and problems” (UNDP 1997
From “governance,” the concept of “good governance” emerged and became prominent in
international aid circles in the 1990s. This serves as a general guiding principle for donor
agencies to demand that recipient governments adhere to proper administrative processes in the
handling of development assistance and put in place effective policy instruments towards that
end (Doornbos 2003). They believe that when there is good governance, there is sustainable
development.
Eight Elements of Good Governance
1. Rule of Law
Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced by an impartial
regulatory body, for the full protection of stakeholders.

2. Transparency
Transparency means that information should be provided in easily understandable forms
and media; that it should be freely available and directly accessible to those who will be
affected by governance policies and practices, as well as the outcomes resulting
therefrom; and that any decisions taken and their enforcement are in compliance with
established rules and regulations.

3. Responsiveness
Good governance requires that organizations and their processes are designed to serve the
best interests of stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.

4. Consensus Oriented
Good governance requires consultation to understand the different interests of
stakeholders in order to reach a broad consensus of what is in the best interest of the
entire stakeholder group and how this can be achieved in a sustainable and prudent
manner.
 . Equity and Inclusiveness
The organization that provides the opportunity for its stakeholders to maintain, enhance,
or generally improve their well-being provides the most compelling message regarding
its reason for existence and value to society.

6. Effectiveness and Efficiency

Good governance means that the processes implemented by the organization to produce
favorable results meet the needs of its stakeholders, while making the best use of
resources – human, technological, financial, natural and environmental – at its disposal.
7. Accountability
Accountability is a key tenet of good governance. Who is accountable for what should be
documented in policy statements. In general, an organization is accountable to those who
will be affected by its decisions or actions as well as the applicable rules of law.

8. Participation
Participation by both men and women, either directly or through legitimate
representatives, is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation needs to be
informed and organized, including freedom of expression and assiduous concern for the
best interests of the organization and society in general.