TRADITIONAL OR CLASSICAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

According to de Guzman (cited by Bautista, 2003), public administration (PA) may refer
not only to those activities involved in carrying out or in implementing the policies and programs
of the government but also to the processes and contents of these policies and programs. From
an even broader perspective, PA may refer to cooperative human action whether within the
public bureaucracy, the private sector, or in nongovernmental organizations aimed at delivering
services to people.
Public administration is also a distinct field of study; it is considered both a professional
and scholarly discipline. As such, it is concerned with public policies and programs, their
formulation and implementation and the sociocultural, economic and political factors bearing on
them. It deals with the systematic study of institutions and processes and the interplay of factors
involved in authoritative decision making on goals, in implementing them, and in achieving
desired results.
1990s marked the birth of a field of study adhering to efficiency, economy and
effectiveness in carrying out the enormous policies and programs of the government for general
welfare that is Old Public Administration. It focuses on areas such as organization and
management, personnel administration and fiscal administration.
The conventional Public Administration formed in 1990s sought “good governance” as
operationalized in the criteria of efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The structure of Old PA
is bureaucratic with emphasis on rules, formalism, ritual, and organization members’ interest in
status, authority and power. The bureaucracy in the Philippines exhibits organizational features
such as (1) hierarchical structure of authority; (2) creation of subunits based on differentiation of
functions of specialization; (3) recruitment and promotion based on merit and competence; and
(4) a system of rules and procedures to guide action in the organization.
However, some dysfunctional behavioral traits, which develop from the rationalistic
orientation of the bureaucracy and the structural features designed to maintain it, tend to
frustrate the realization of the goals. Thus, the beginning of some government activities (red
tape, 50-50 arrangement) based on negative values such as conservatism and extreme caution,
timidity, lack of initiative, unwillingness to delegate, rigidity and inflexibility, buck-passing,
pakikisama, utang-na-loob,compradrazgo. Other traditional Philippine values such as hiya,
utang –na-loob and close family ties become negative when they are
operationalized within the bureaucracy.
MODERN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

A reform was made to improve government/political activities. In the late 1960s in

Syracuse, the concept of New Public Administration (PA) was developed within emphasis on
normative orientation, meaning its commitment to social equity and the enhancement of quality
of life. The proponent is Frank Maniri. New PA’s purpose is to change policy and structures that
systematically inhibit social equity and to reduce human suffering particularly those that arise
from existing, oppressive administrative arrangements (Ocampo as cited by Bautista, 1993)
Beyond the three Es of classical PA, New PA pursues the values of relevance, social
equity and client-orientedness. It is for the reason that good government is not focusing on
internal efficiency but more on advancing social equity through relevant programs and projects
which bring perceivable benefits to specific target clients. The organizational form of New PA is
non-bureaucratic, thus, the start to hear the words adhocracy as well as the matrix, task force or
project team variety (Pilar as cited by Bautista, 1993).
The article of Ocampo surveys three well-known models of reform in public
administration and management with the end in view of developing a framework for analyzing
ideas and experiences in particular countries. These were reinventing, reengineering and new
public management.

1. Reinventing Governmentis a revolutionary change process that had happened before

in the Progressive and New Deal eras in the U. S. and a model represents a “paradigm
shift” from the New Deal paradigm of 1930s to 1960s toward the “ENTREPRENEURIAL
GOVERNMENT” or doing business in the public sector (Osborne and Gaebler, as cited
by Bautista 2003).
2. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) or Reengineering is the fundamental
rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality
service, and speed (Hammer and Champy, as cited by Bautista 2003). BPR gives
greater attention to private business because it has affinities with organization and
management and Taylorism and methodology. The model was used in governments of
United States, Ireland, European Union, United Kingdom and Africa. It has the following
features:
1. Separate, simple tasks are combined into skilled, multi-functional jobs.
2. The stages in a process are performed in the natural order.
3. Work is performed where it is best done – some parts of the process may
thus be out-sourced.
4. The volume of checking and control of separate tasks is reduced.
5. There is total compatibility between processes, the nature of jobs and
structure, management methods, and the organization’s
values and beliefs.
6. IT is recognized and exploited as offering many opportunities for the redesign of
the work systems and the provision of information to enhance devolved decision-
making.
7. Processes may have multiple versions to cope with varying circumstances.
8. Managerial hierarchies and organizational structures are flattened.
9. Rewards are given for the achievement of results, not simply for activity.
10. Work units (i.e., sections or departments) change from functional units
to become process teams.
11. Customers have a single point of contact with the organization.