1.

Definition of Public Administration

Public administration is a field in which leaders serve the public to advance the common good and effect
positive change. Public administration professionals are equipped with skills to manage at all levels of government.

Extended Meaning of Public Administration

Public administration, as a bureaucratic organization, is conceived to work within a set of rules with legitimate,
delegated, legal-rational authority, expertise, impartiality, continuity, speed and accuracy, predictability,
standardization, integrity, and professionalism to satisfy the general public interest.

As an instrument of the State, it is expected to provide the fundamental bases of human development and security,
including freedom of the individual, protection of life and property, justice, protection of basic human rights, stability,
and peaceful resolution of conflict, whether in allocation and distribution of resources or otherwise. In this light,
effective public administration is indispensable for the sustainability of the rule of law.

According to Encyclopedia

Public administration is the study and implementation of policy. As a moral endeavor, public administration is linked
to pursuing the public good through the creation of civil society and social justice.

The adjective ‘public’ often denotes ‘government’, though it increasingly encompasses nonprofit organizations such
as those of civil society or any entity and its management not specifically acting in self-interest. The term public
administration sometimes is taken to refer narrowly to government bureaucracy.

Management and Organization studies

One core stone of public administration is based on knowledge from management and organizational sciences. A
managerial definition of public administration proclaims that it is the executive function in government or a
management specialty applied in public systems. Although public sector management is distinguished from private
sector management, in many ways the two systems share a surprisingly broad area of similarities.

First Beginnings of Public Administration

Public administration was born towards the end of the 19th century when the business of the state started to attract
social-academic attention. The revolution turning public administration into an independent science and profession is
traditionally related to the influential work and vision of Woodrow Wilson (1887) and Frank J. Goodnow (1900).

These scholars were among the first who advocated the autonomy of the field as a unique area of science that drew
substance from several sources. In the first years, law, the political theory of the state, and several hard sciences such
as engineering and industrial relations were the most fundamental and influential mother disciplines.

Over time, these fields strongly influenced the formation and transition of public administration but the extent and
direction of the influence were not linear or consistent.

The legal Definition of Public Administration

As maintained by Rosenbloom, the legal approach views public administration “as applying and enforcing the law in
concrete circumstances” and is “infused with legal and adjudicatory concerns”. This approach is derived from three
major interrelated sources:

 Administrative law, which is the body of law and regulations that control generic administrative processes;
 the judicialization of public administration, which is the tendency for administrative processes to resemble
courtroom procedures; and
 Constitutional law redefines a variety of citizens’ rights and liberties. Several legal definitions argue that
public administration is law in action and mainly a regulative system, which is the “government telling
citizens and businesses what they may and may not do”.

Socio-political context

Studying public administration is also a social issue. Thus, another approach that is highly relevant to the
understanding of public administration bodies and processes rests on a sociological apparatus. It has a very close
relationship with the political approach, so it is sometimes defined as a socio-political view of public systems or as
a study of political culture. Yet its core prospects are beyond the political context.

Public Administration as Academic Discipline

The academic field evolved in the United States from both academic political science and law as a separate studies in
the 1910s. In Europe, notably England and Germany (Max Weber), it started as a separate scholarly field in the 1890s,
but it was first taught in Continental universities in the 1720s.

The Federalist Papers several times referred to the importance of good administration, and scholars such as John A.
Rohr see a long history behind the constitutional legitimacy of government bureaucracy.

Frame of reference

Three main disciplines serve today as core sources of knowledge in the study of public administration:

 Policy analysis, Political science, and Political Economy

 Sociology, Cultural studies, and Community studies
 Management and Organizational studies

Public Administrators

Actors are the experts, especially experts in alliance with dominant political powers. The confidence in expert
knowledge manifests itself both in the planning optimism and in the formation of new professional groups in
connection with the implementation of welfare programs. Also in this case their alliance with political power becomes
important for effects on policy.

2. Concept of Public Administration

The theory of Public Administration

Public Administration is an area where discussions of the meaning and purpose of government, bureaucracy, budgets,
governance, and public affairs take place.
In recent years, public administration theory has occasionally connoted a heavy orientation toward critical theory and
postmodern philosophical notions of government, governance, and power, but many public administration scholars
support a classic definition of the term which gives weight to constitutionality, service bureaucratic forms of
organization, and hierarchical government.

The missing link

Public Administration scholars have not established a strong causal relationship between the outcomes of
government on the one side and its structures, processes, and personnel, on the other.

Analytical Focus

While analyzing policy processes one has to assume that some factors are accountable for the quality of governing.
They include the quality of decision-making, the knowledge capability of governments, the capacity to mediate
between political interests, and the effectiveness of administrative institutions responsible for the implementation of
governmental policies.

Connoting the “Public”

The word public often seems to be a synonym for ‘universal’. But you are not just public administrators; you are also
administrators of various ‘publics’, in the form of communities, neighborhoods, interest groups, and a wide variety of
wildly diverging but very concrete citizens, residents, and persons. And it is the reality of these diverse publics that
makes the application of universals difficult.

“Public” is the heart of the matter

Whether public administration is operating at the global, regional, national or local community levels, the multitude
of public interests and needs that have to be satisfied in a complex variety of ways make it highly desirable that there
be a close engagement, involvement, and participation of the various publics in the identification, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of public administration.

Organizational Actors in Public Administration

Every government consists of political and administrative actors playing roles within organizations. The character of
political and administrative leadership is of utmost importance for the governing process.

Constitutional rules that constrain political and administrative actors constitute a legal framework for their operations.
Actors and institutions are also influenced by political and administrative cultures that permeate human societies.

The Misunderstood Concept

The world of government and public administration has traveled far since the early days of its struggle for disciplinary
independence. Lately, there has been talking of the advent of a new spirit in the public sector, or at least expectations
of its coming. Some say that such a spirit is already here. Others aver we are witnessing only the tip of change.

The worldwide globalization process supported by stronger orientations towards open markets, open highways of
information, growing levels of organizational learning, and interdisciplinary in the social sciences has also made their
impact on the study of our bureaucracies.
Yet by all definitions, public administration at the beginning of the 2000s still lacks the sense of identity that other
fields of the social sciences have long since obtained.

In other words, the field is looking back and down into its individuality, searching for orientations and signs that can
direct it on its way forward. Today, public administration is already very different from what it used to be forty, thirty,
and even twenty or ten years ago. In the coming years, it is going to be even more different.

3. Reforming the Public Administration

Reform can transform public administration and thus improve the odds bringing yet others to the surface. It is
tempting to offer strategies for fundamental reforms, for no one can embrace waste, abuse, or mismanagement.

The promise of a cheaper and better-functioning government prompts the designing and implementation of public
administration reform and modernization policies to be rooted in decision-making processes that secure majority
support or socio-political consensus.

Government, policymakers, and decision leaders should anticipate the need for such reform and modernization
policies and take the time to create propitious conditions for their adoption through consensus building or inclusive
decision-making.

Reforms Process

The reform process must include reforming institutions to enable them to perform effectively. This will also ensure
that capable personnel with adequate knowledge, skills, attitude, and networks confront the challenges in a
sustainable manner; staff the institutions of public administration.

This implies that revitalizing public administration must be equally concerned with uplifting the capacity of human
resources in the public sector. A restructured public administration must be capable of building up, strengthening,
and appropriately utilizing human capital.

Renewed institutions, together with their human resources, must be capable of embracing partnerships with other
stakeholders and key players in the private sector and civil society to facilitate the practice of engaged or shared
governance.

Governance, Transparency, and Knowledge Society

Engaged governance will necessitate participation, transparency, information, and the capacity for knowledge sharing
as well as flexibility and ability to adapt to new thinking within the information society.

A revitalized public administration will embrace and master the tenets of creating and managing a knowledge society,
while at the same time ensuring that the entire public administration adopts attributes of a learning organization to
catalyze and respond to change and cope with the challenges and opportunities of globalization.

Tools of Development

What is important is that reform in public administration must be viewed within the overall principles of “good
governance”. Partnerships, a critical aspect of “good governance”, need to be seen as key tools of development
management and as accountable institutional frameworks dedicated to the common goals of poverty reduction and
sustainable human development.

5. Reinventing Government
Reinventing government is a revolution in government management. It is less a revolutionary than an evolutionary
movement.

To its great credit, reinventing government has evolved to the point that it has recognized the central dilemma:
redefining accountability for performance in the many programs where government partners share responsibility for
performance.

The Reinvention Evolution

Government reform—especially management reform—has become an inescapable issue for governments

everywhere. Developed nations with large social welfare systems found that their economies could not sustain the
systems’ costs. Developing nations, struggling to grow their economies, worked to sweep away old regulatory
systems and insider schemes to leap ahead.

6. Governance
Thinking about how best to govern is not a new issue. It was central to Aristotle’s thinking about how best to facilitate
people’s ability to lead flourishing lives in Ancient Greece.

Theory of Governance

Conventional wisdom in governance is not developed as a credible theory, but with trial and error, tradition-blessed
familiarity, and the dominance of either managers or management mentality. Governance is a paradigm of concepts
and principles applicable to any governing board, whether profit, nonprofit, or governmental, and whether appointed
or elected. There should be universal principles of governance.

The Substance

Governance refers to processes- how things are done, not just what is done. It requires more than a focus on
government. It also relates to the nature of relations between the state and society. Governance refers to the nature
of rules that regulate the public realm – the space where state and economic and societal actors interact to make
decisions.

The Constitutional Framework of Governance

Theories of governance and public administration emphasize a variety of conditions facilitating effective government.
A theoretical assumption orienting the institutional studies of policy-making and public administration assumes that
institutions of political and administrative systems may be conceived of as the independent variables that account for
cross-national variations of the policy orientations and effectiveness of governance.

21st Century and Public Administration

In public administration theory and practice, the 21st century has been marked by a shift of emphasis from efficiency
to effectiveness. That’s why Public Administration in the 21st century is of utmost importance. Yet, for the public
administration and “government” to work “capacities to govern” must be developed. They include capacities related
to setting strategic direction, building the capacity to implement policy, and building new ways of financing public
goods and services, as well as, absorbing funds and managing programs.

An Unfinished Business

Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, the formation of public administration as an interdisciplinary academic
field seems certain. Still, it is unfinished business due to the need and demands to make it more of a harder social
science, one that is closer to management science, economics, or even psychology.

Future Brings a Different Role

The wisdom of managing states and communities in the 21st century relies on manifold disciplines and multiple
sources of knowledge. The information era and the immense technological advancement with which our nations
struggle necessarily create higher levels of accessibility, availability, and transparency to the public. The emergence of
e-government is no more a fantastic dream but a blatant reality.

Public administration is moving through reforms and changes that are aimed at downsizing, privatization, de-
bureaucratization, higher professional managerialism, and above all strict dedication and aspirations to become a
better science by improving measurement tools and adhering to positivism and empiricism.

Public Servants and Future

Professionals in public service in the future are expected to think independently, be entrepreneurial in developing
new services, and be innovative in developing new ideas or approaches to existing services.

In facing new situations, they will have to be dynamic and proactive, that is, anticipate change and take action to
prepare for change. In dealing with the public, they will have to be facilitative, assist clients in terms of their needs and
support, and provide services that help the public help themselves.

Future of Public Administration

There will be changed conditions under which public managers will operate in the future, some of the areas of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that they will be required to possess, and some of the pathways public managers
might explore to move toward the future.

A technological shape-up

There will be an extraordinary explosion of new knowledge and technological innovations, especially in the areas of
information sciences, genetics, materials, instrumentation, automation, and space. Our public managers will wade into
an age of extraordinary technological change and have to accommodate themselves and the institutions to
dramatically different bodies of knowledge and technological innovations.

Not an option, but a necessity

Our public managers will not only have to cope with and employ their expanded knowledge and technological
capacity, but they will also have to learn to use this knowledge and technological capacity for the benefit of society.

In the technological world of the future, there will be even greater temptations for them to be captured by
technology, to fall prey to “technological imperative,” and to allow rational technical interests to supersede human
concerns and those of values.

Finding ways of employing advanced technologies to enhance rather than restrict their capacity for leadership,
creativity, and personal responsibility will be a serious challenge.

Information is power

In the future, knowledge and information will prevail. And if the information is power, then those who have
information will indeed have power. But who will have the information? Information will be increasingly centralized
and controlled and marketed through traditional economic and political processes.

It will be widely distributed throughout society, so that increasing rather than decreasing numbers of people will have
information and in turn have power. Such a possibility will lead to “the twilight of hierarchy,” to be inevitable.

Changing into knowledge (brain) workers

Combining these issues, we can safely predict that the knowledge or information that our public managers will be
able to access will be tremendous, to the point that the quantity of information will no longer be the most important
issue.

Rather the key question will be how to organize this information for human purposes. This means that public
administration will have to learn to organize information in a fashion that will facilitate the pursuit of important public
purposes. The great challenge will be to organize information so that we can enhance the process of democratic
decision-making, consensus building, and of dialogue and deliberation.

Working at the speed of thought

There’s no question that we will have the capacity to organize information for dramatic new public purposes and to
restructure our structures of governance in dramatic ways. But what will our choices be? Imagine a computer in
Islamabad that could reach out into every home, so that on any occasion that a major policy decision was required, an
appropriate message could go out to all the citizens and their answers could guide public policy – a process that
would approximate pure democracy.

Global Thought Process

The globalization of society is obvious today, though in twenty-five years or so, we may experience trans-
globalization or beyond, as the frontiers of the oceans and space are extended even further. Already we are thinking
more in global terms. However, our managers are still thinking in terms of traditional institutions operating in a new
global context.

They are not yet asking how they reconfigure businesses and governments to carry out a global vision. How do they
encourage businesses and governments to assume global responsibilities rather than those defined in terms of one’s
self-interest? For example, how Pakistan move toward sustainable development and environmental justice on a global
basis?
The emerging forms of governance

One obvious casualty of the global age may be the nation-state, replaced not necessarily by a new global or
interplanetary federation but possibly by new forms of governance far beyond those we can imagine today.

The new language of ethics, citizenship, and public interest

In the future, our public administration should know the importance of “responsibilities” rather than “functions” of
government. While a large part of the current worldwide debate over privatization or outsourcing speaks to the
question of which “functions” belong where, the new debate will necessarily focus on public responsibilities and speak
in a language of ethics, citizenship, and the public interest.

Reinventing Government

In reinvented government or the new public management, customers shall replace citizens – or, to put it differently,
the integrative role of citizenship has been reduced to the narrow self-interest of customership – in government as in
business.

The new public manager – builder of networks

Indeed, we think the job of all public managers will increasingly be more than directing or managing our public
organizations. It will be not merely “steering” or “rowing” but “building the boat.” The new public manager will
construct networks of varied interests that can work effectively to solve public problems.

In doing so, it will be the job of the public administrator to promote pluralism, create opportunities for constructive
dissent, preserve that which is distinctive about individuals and groups, and provide an opportunity for diverse groups
to share in establishing future directions for the community.

The administrator will play a substantial role in diminishing polarization, teaching diversity and respect, building
coalitions, resolving disputes, negotiating, and mediating. The work of the top public managers will thus be – to build
community.

Inside out and upside down

There are two broad areas that public managers will need to explore to fashion a response to the trends. These
emerging trends will turn public management both “inside-out” and “upside-down.” Public management will be
turned “inside-out” as the largest internal focus of management in the past is replaced by an external focus,
specifically a focus on citizens and citizenship.

Public management will be turned “upside-down” as the traditional top-down can an orientation of the field is
replaced – not necessarily by a bottom-up approach, but by a system of shared leadership. In the past public
administration has been largely focused on what happens within the public bureaucracy. The future will require that it
dramatically focus its attention on the world outside, particularly the world of citizens and citizenship.
Accountability, delegation

Accountability will still be important but a degree of flexibility needs to be encouraged to fit local situations or
conditions. There will be an emphasis on reducing how long it takes to carry out a service or the complexities involved
in the service. Public employees should be given the power to take action appropriate to their level. This delegation
will have to be guaranteed ethical standards and discipline. Public service must also emphasize equal opportunity and
treatment for all citizens.

Vision & long-term strategies

It will be important for Public Service agencies to create a vision of what is expected in the future. Along with a vision
of the future Pakistan’s public administration will require appropriate visions and long-term strategies to accomplish
the challenging objectives they will face in the 21st century.

Pakistan in the 21st century

It is simply impossible for Pakistan to meet the challenges of the 21st century with the bureaucracy, regulations, and
systems of the 19th century. Implementing policy effectively is ultimately as important as making the right policy.

Today the question that what constitutes good governance, and how can it be achieved, is not rare. The forces of
globalization, liberalization, and the revolution in information technology have shattered many a myth hitherto held
sacrosanct about the government and more specifically concerning its primary institution of governance—the public
administration.

The world is altogether different today

Here and now, the government can no longer afford to support rigid, bureaucratic, reactive, rules-driven
administrative organizations. Today’s administrative systems are flexible, consultative, result-oriented, and proactive,
at the same time encouraging and supporting creativity and innovation from the bottom up in order to govern and
provide services to the citizens at large.

Junking the old Rut

There’s a popular realization about the rethinking of the ways the government conducts its business. Other nations
are now more bent down for innovative solutions and creative solutions to complex environmental and global
problems. Consequently, public administrators in Pakistan must now pay attention to issues inventively rather than
tackling them with an outmoded style.

Culture of excellence

As the public administration of Pakistan renews itself, it knows it is the actions of public servants, and in particular, of
those who lead others, that will foster a healthy, dynamic workplace and a culture of excellence.

Its commitment to shared values and excellent public service will help determine how well it performs and,
consequently, how effectively it can continue to inspire confidence in public service. As it moves forward, it will look at
its past with pride, and at its future with hope and expectation.

Futuristic Homology
The people of Pakistan yearn for a professional, non-partisan public administration to function properly. It only takes
a moment’s reflection to see that public administration is an important part of the glue that keeps the country
together.

The point is that it is playing an extremely important role and does not let anyone tell otherwise. It desperately needs
to improve accountability, strengthen its culture of teamwork, promote leadership, and make excellence its
benchmark. Its progress on renewal will be steady, its actions concrete and coordinated, and our success measured by
sustained results.

The Roadmap

Through research, interviews, events, and reports, Pakistan should define and outline:

The reasons for change

 How large are the economic and human losses from today’s confusing system and perverse incentives?
 The case for focusing the state on broad distribution issues and harnessing the power of choice,
competition, and provision in insurance/saving provision
 The gains in terms of greater responsiveness, more positive incentives, and increasing demand for
saving/insurance services
 Definition of Bureaucracy
 Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1971) defined bureaucracy as “a system of administration marked
by constant striving for increased functions and power, by lack of initiative and flexibility.
 In difference of human needs or public opinion, and by a tendency to defer decisions to superior or to
impede action with red tape… the body of officials that gives effect to such a system.”
 Bureaucracy definition according to Encyclopedia Britannica:
 The Encyclopedia Britannica defines bureaucracy as a professional corps of officials organized in a pyramidal
hierarchy and functioning under impersonal, uniform rules and procedures.
 Believe it or not, bureaucracy existed long before words and theories were devised to describe it in detail.
The Chinese Song dynasty, for example, constructed a centralized bureaucracy with civilian scholar-officials.
 This system of rule led to a much greater concentration of power in the hands of the emperor and his palace
bureaucracy than was achieved in previous dynasties.


 Literality meaning of Bureaucracy
 It, however, literally connotes that power is in the hand of officials. Sociologists use this term to designate a
certain type of structure, a particular organization of rationally coordinated unequal, and reject the term,
which equates bureaucracy with red tape, inefficiency, and similar negative connotations.
 Sociological Perspective of Bureaucracy
 In the social sciences, the term usually does not carry the pejorative associations of popular usage.
Bureaucracy is a kind of formal administrative structure. It has distinctive characteristics and problems.
 Understanding Bureaucracy and its Concept
 Bureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the way that the administrative
execution and enforcement of legal rules are socially organized. This office organization is characterized by
standardized procedure, formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships.
 Through and through, bureaucracy is one of the institutional anchors for the effective functioning of the
democratic system and the enforcement of the rule of law.
 Bureaucracy—a Sociological Tool
 Organizations surround us. Bureaucracy is a blueprint for organizing human activities for the desired end. It
is a sociological phenomenon that has evolved throughout the history of civilization.
 As a sociological tool, it has been used to build pyramids, invade nations, cure illnesses, keep criminals
incarcerated, land on Mars, massacre millions, educate, and so on.
 It is the tool of power, an effective device to control and direct human effort and behavior. The bureaucratic
theory of Max Weber has been a point of departure for the development and modification of organizational
structure to influence the flow of interrelationships within organizations.
 The degree of bureaucracy in an organization sets the boundaries for human action. These boundaries that
regulate people’s freedom have a by-product known as alienation. The construct of alienation has been
studied in relation to bureaucracy. It has been demonstrated that people who work in bureaucracies have a
limited “say” in what they do. For good or for evil, bureaucracy is the machinery to control human behavior.
What matters is how to use this device without alienating people.
 Range of Meaning
 Bureaucracy refers to a professional, full-time administrative staff with life-long employment, organized
careers, salaries, and pensions, appointed to office and rewarded on the basis of formal education, merit and
tenure.
 Bureaucracy can also be seen as a rational tool for executing the commands of elected leaders. In this
perspective it is an organizational apparatus for getting things done, to be assessed on the basis of its
effectiveness and efficiency in achieving pre-determined purposes. Bureaucratic structure determines what
authority and resources can be legitimately used, how, when, where and by whom.
 Dimensions
 Bureaucratic characteristics or dimensions could create different configurations of bureaucracies. Since the
1960s, dimensional approaches to studying bureaucracy have been used. Hall was among the first to
bureaucratic dimensions in organizations empirically.
 After an extensive literature review, he identified six dimensions of bureaucracy: hierarchy of authority,
division of labor, rules, and regulations, procedural specifications, impersonality, and technical competence.
 Hierarchy of authority, rules and regulations, procedural specifications, and impersonality clustered together
while the division of labor and technical competence clustered together.
 The higher-order dimension formed by the first set of dimensions is a measure of bureaucratization while
the higher-order dimension formed by the second set of dimensions is a partial measure of professionalism.
Isherwood and Hoy (1973) confirmed that Hall’s six dimensions cluster under two separate second-order
dimensions.
 Bureaucracy as an Institution
 Out and out, bureaucracy is also an institution with a raison d’etre and organizational and normative
principles of its own. The administration is based on the rule of law, due process, codes of appropriate
behavior, and a system of rationally debatable reasons. Bureaucracy, then, is an expression of cultural values
and a form of governing with intrinsic value.
 Over and Above
 Bureaucracy is more than a stock of human resources, an organizational apparatus, or an employment
system. It is an articulated set of operating rules and guidelines regulating the executive branch that aims to
give continuity, coherence, and relevance to public policies while ensuring a neutral, objective, and non-
arbitrary exercise of public authority.


 The bureaucracy is a key factor in encouraging inter-temporal agreements, especially through its role in
putting such agreements into practice. A neutral and professional bureaucracy limits the scope for the
adoption of opportunistic policies and enhances the trust of actors that commitments made, as a part of
policy agreements will be fulfilled.
 Examples of bureaucracy
 Examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces, autonomous bodies, corporations,
hospitals, courts, ministries, educational institutions and political parties, etc. measure
 Vagueness Curbside
 Even though the concept of bureaucracy enwraps political sociology and public opinion, it has remained so
vague that it is important to ask about the characteristics of the phenomenon it asserts to describe. One may
receive an impression of the diversity or ambiguity of its connotation.
 Veritably, bureaucracy appears as something incredible that everyone comments upon, feels, and
experiences, but which keeps from abstraction.
 Abstract Vs Concrete
 It is an abstract bureaucracy that bears a negative connotation, while the concrete noun – a bureaucracy, a
synonym for an organized civil service-does not necessarily do so.
 This distinction allows us to imagine that there could be bureaucracies that are not bureaucratic in the
pejorative sense. From this one might conclude that the essential problem for poor countries is designing
the institutional context for a non-bureaucratic bureaucracy.
 Before jumping to this conclusion, however, it is necessary to be more precise about what is wrong with
bureaucracy in the abstract sense.
 Bad Bureaucracy
 Those who use bureaucracy as a term of abuse, rather than a neutral description of a body of government
officials, are probably making one or more of five complaints.
 The most fundamental complaint is that officials are accountable only to their superiors, and not to those
whose affairs they administer. This implies no accountability to the governed. Bad bureaucracy then is the
lack of popular accountability of officials.
 The bureaucracy, to the extent that it provides goods and services, operates without any competition and
thus has no incentive to force down the costs of production of public services. Bad bureaucracy is pervasively
inefficient.
 This complaint runs parallel to the previous one. To the extent that the bureaucracy is providing regulatory
services, it is in danger of being captured by the private interests whose activities it is intended to regulate.
 When regulatory capture has taken place, bad bureaucracy becomes the creator and distributor of rents and
vested interests in the private sector (Stigler 1975).
 Modem bureaucracies operate by making and enforcing rules that apply to categories of people. The
purpose of this practice of making general rules is to eliminate arbitrariness, personal favoritism, and
objectionable discrimination in administration. Bad bureaucracy is the legalistic implementation of category-
based rules.


 This is about the multiplication of offices and departments, which then operate without adequate
coordination. The proliferation of different offices induces a failure of high-level overall control of the
bureaucracy.
 In these conditions, delegation becomes incoherent, and bureaus operate with overlapping and conflicting
functions. As a result, people suffer unnecessary delays while trying to find out which office is responsible for
the matter concerning them. Bad bureaucracy is the bureaucratic expansion and the blurring of
responsibilities that it induces.
 Odd Perception of Bureaucracy
 For the most part, we have educated ourselves to see bureaucracy as a necessary evil, a self-protecting and
self-enhancing institution permanently embedded in complex economies. And given the long-held belief
that not much can be done about bureaucracy, it has occupied little in the way of analytic attention.
 Diverse angles of perceptions
 There are well-accepted theories of why it exists; none are mutually exclusive. The most important seems to
be that it is necessary for organizations to achieve scale and maintain the organization’s authority and
purpose as it grows.
 Others suggest bureaucracy exists to ensure fairness, especially within the public sphere; or, to maintain and
store information that is needed for the organization to proceed. Nearly all theorists see it as orthogonal to
human creativity and innovation.

 
 The Ideal Type of Bureaucracy
 As an ideal type, bureaucracy has clear characteristics, preconditions, and effects. Practice at best
approximates the ideal type and public administration is never a fully developed bureaucracy. There are fluid
and overlapping organizational principles and the functioning, emergence, growth, and consequences of
bureaucracy depend on a variety of factors.
 Effectiveness of Bureaucracy
 Peter Evans (2003) has proposed that the effectiveness of public institutions depends on hybridity, an
integrated balance among three different modes of guiding public action.
 The three modes are: enhancing bureaucratic capacity, defined in terms of Weber’s ideal type characteristics;
following market signals, conveying the costs and benefits of public resource use; and empowering bottom-
up democratic participation to check that state action reflects the needs and desires of ordinary citizens.
 The Risk Factor
 Bureaucracy is, in its essence, a means of communication whose purpose is to reduce risk. Within
organizations, the risk-averting dialogue is articulated in rules that bound the behaviors of people and
control processes. There is also an inter-institutional dialog that establishes rules, which similarly limit
individual decision-making in order to reduce risk and to comply with larger social objectives articulated by
the legislature.
 Weber’s Concept of Bureaucracy
 Bureaucracy is often used as a pejorative slogan, as well as, a label for all public administration, or any large-
scale formal organization.


 Max Weber, however, made bureaucracy an analytical concept, decoupled from the polemical context in
which it had emerged. Here the term signifies, a distinct organizational setting, the bureau or office:
formalized, hierarchical, specialized with a clear functional division of labor and demarcation of jurisdiction,
and standardized, rule-based, and impersonal.
 Weber- Rules & Orders
 He defined domination based on the authority and the validity of order as questions of degree and
probabilities. Orders could be interpreted differently, there could be contradictory systems of order and the
key questions were: how often and under which conditions do bureaucrats actually comply with rules and
commands, and how often are rules and commands enforced?
 Bureaucratization was stimulated by the quantitative and qualitative expansion of administrative tasks, but its
direction and the reasons that occasioned it could vary widely.
 Weber saw the bureaucrats’ willingness and capacity to follow rules and orders as depending on a variety of
mechanisms. The motivation was a result of material incentives inherent in life-long careers, as well as
socialization and training in educational and bureaucratic institutions.

Important Theories of Bureaucracy

Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy

Max Weber, whose definition and theories set the foundations for all subsequent work on the subject, first formulated
the characteristics of bureaucracy in a systematic manner.

A highly developed division of labor and specialization of tasks is one of the most fundamental features of
bureaucracy. This is achieved by a precise and detailed definition of the duties and responsibilities of each position or
office.
The allocation of a limited number of tasks to each office operates according to the principle of fixed jurisdictional
areas that are determined by administrative regulations.

Pervasive Characteristic

The most important and pervasive characteristic of bureaucracy is the existence of a system of control based on
rational rules—that is, rules meant to design and regulate the whole organization on the basis of technical knowledge
and with the aim of achieving maximum efficiency.

According to Max Weber “Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of
knowledge. This is the feature of it which makes it specifically rational”.

Elements of Weber’s Theory

Modem officialdom functions in a specific manner that:

1. there is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by
laws or administrative regulations.
2. The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a
fixed way as official duties.
3. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way
and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise, which
may be placed at the disposal of officials.
In public and lawful government, these three elements constitute bureaucratic authority. In private economic
domination, they constitute bureaucratic management.

Bureaucracy, thus understood, is fully developed in political and ecclesiastical communities only in the modem state,
and, in the private economy, only in the most advanced institutions of capitalism. Permanent and public office
authority, with fixed jurisdiction, is not the historical rule but rather the exception.

This is so even in large political structures such as those of the ancient Orient, the Germanic and Mongolian empires
of conquest, or many feudal structures of the state. In all these cases, the ruler executes the most important measures
through personal trustees, table companions, or court servants. Their commissions and authority are not precisely
delimited and are temporarily called into being for each case.

Weber’s Principles of office hierarchy

The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of super- and
subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.

Such a system offers the governed the possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority, in
a definitely regulated with the full development of the bureaucratic type, the office hierarchy is nomocratically
organized.

The principle of hierarchical office authority is found in all bureaucratic structures: in state and ecclesiastical manner.
Structures as well as large party organizations and private enterprises. It does not matter for the character of
bureaucracy whether its authority is called ‘private’ or ‘public.’

Weber’s management of the office

The management of the modem office is based upon written documents (the files), which are preserved in their
original or draught form. There is, therefore, a staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts.

The body of officials actively engaged in a public office, along with the respective apparatus of material implements
and the files, make up a bureau. In private enterprises, the bureau is often called the office.

In principle, the modem organization of the civil service separates the bureau from the private domicile of the official,
and, in general, bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life.

Public monies and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This condition is everywhere the
product of a long development. Nowadays, it is found in public as well as in private enterprises; in the latter, the
principle extends even to the leading entrepreneur.

In principle, the executive office is separated from the household, business from private correspondence, and business
assets from private fortunes. The more consistently the modem type of business management has been carried
through the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this process are to be found as early as the
Middle Ages.

Weber’s modern office

Office management, at least all specialized office management—and such management is distinctly modem—usually
presupposes thorough and expert training. This increasingly holds for the modem executive and employee of private
enterprises, in the same manner as it holds for the state official.

Characteristics of Weber’s Bureaucracy

Max Weber believed that bureaucracy could be understood by analyzing its ideal-typical characteristics, which would
become more pervasive as the modem age advanced. His horizontal account of bureaucracy can be criticized on
various grounds, including his unrealistic notion of bureaucratic rationality.

Max Weber’s account of the evolution of bureaucracy started from the claim that modem officialdom could be
identified by a set of typical characteristics.

They said that officials were full-time salaried employees, whose appointment, promotion, and retirement were
contractually based; that they were technically trained and that this was a condition of their employment; and that
official rights and duties were well-defined in public written regulations.

He argued, however, that these novel characteristics did not apply just to modern state administrators, but to the
institutions of modem society much more broadly.

He saw the typical characteristics of modem bureaucracy emerging not just in state administration, but also in the
church, the law, the military, political parties, science, university research, and even in private enterprises.

Because of the wide range of institutions that he believed modem bureaucracy to be permeating, one might say that
Weber viewed bureaucracy as a horizontal phenomenon spreading throughout society.

Six Attributes of Bureaucratic Organization

Max Weber listed organizational attributes that when present, constitute the bureaucratic form of organization:

1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules.

2. A specific sphere of competence.
3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy; each lower office is under the control and
supervision of a higher one.
4. The rules, which regulate the conduct of an office, maybe technical rules or norms.
5. It is a matter of principle that members of the administrative staff should be completely separated from
ownership of the means of production or administration.
6. In order to enhance organizational freedom, the resources of the? The organization has to be free of any
outside control and any incumbent cannot monopolize the positions.

Peter Blau: Formal Theory of Differentiation

Blau developed a deductive theory of organizational differentiation, which he defines as ‘the number of structural
components distinguished by one criterion. Blau’s crucial variable is organizational size, which leads to structural
differentiation and coordination problems within the organization. Blau sets forth two general principles and nine
related propositions, which comprise the framework of his theory. It is important to note that Blau’s theory refers to
organizations with paid employees and largely ignores technology, environmental factors, or individual psychology
within organizations.

Theory of Ludwig von Mises

According to Mises, bureaucracy can be fully understood only with a comparison with the operation of the profit
motive as it functions in the capitalistic market society‫۔‬  Consequently, Mises’ approach consists in giving a definition
of bureaucracy by stressing what it is not.

He asserts that bureaucratic management is the management of affairs, which cannot be checked by economic
calculation‫۔‬

This connotation is too elliptic and not clear enough when it is isolated from the rest of the book. This unclear
dimension of the proposed definition is reinforced when he asserts:

we must answer again that bureaucracy in itself is neither good nor bad. It is a method of management that can be
applied in different spheres of human activity‫۔‬

Theory of Peter Blau

Blau developed a deductive theory of organizational differentiation, which he defines as “the number of structural
components distinguished by one criterion”.

His crucial variable is organizational size, which leads to structural differentiation and coordination problems within
the organization. It is important to note that Blau’s theory refers to organizations with paid employees and largely
ignores technology, environmental factors, or individual psychology within organizations.

He develops his theoretical framework with reference to quantitative research of structural differentiation in 53
governmental organizations.
Plutocratic Theories
German sociologist Robert Michels was one of the first theorists who tried systematically to link increasing
bureaucratization with the oligarchic tendencies in modem society. He focused his attention primarily on the internal
political structure of large-scale organizations.

His main thesis, the famous iron law of oligarchy, postulates that with the increasing complexity and bureaucratization
of organizations all power is concentrated at the top, in the hands of an organizational elite that rules in a dictatorial
manner.

This is so even if oligarchy, as in the German Socialist Party, which he extensively studied, runs against the ideals and
intentions of both rulers and ruled.

On the one hand, such liberal German economists as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek have been alarmed
at the proportions of the state bureaucracy and its increasing intervention in the economic sphere.

For them, it is the government is leveling tendencies and its insatiable appetite for expansion that gradually destroys
free enterprise and undermines democratic institutions.

Bureaucratic Proletarianism
Whereas Lenin and other Soviet writers could not admit that bureaucracy had a permanent and organic position in
the Soviet system, other Marxists thought that it was at its center and that it defined more than anything else the very
nature of the regime.

From their point of view, bureaucracy was not only a privileged oppressive group but a new exploiting class, a class
characterized by a new type of oligarchic regime that was neither socialist nor capitalist and that was rapidly
spreading both in the East and in the West.

 orientations but also on the leaders’ ability to give direction and the continuous availability of resources.

Schools of Thought in Public Administration

The Semantic Flow of School of Thought

A school is a collection or group of people who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of a philosophy,
belief, social movement, cultural movement, or art movement. It is for this reason a school is often called a school of
thought.

Schools are commonly characterized by their currency, and thus classified into new and old schools. This dichotomy is
often a component of a paradigm shift. However, it is rarely the case that there are only two schools in any given field.

Schools of Administrative Thought

Within the historical perspective of the development of public administration, eight schools of administrative theories
have been discussed.
The empirical school, the school of human behavior, the bureaucratic school, the school of the social system, the
decision-making school, the mathematical school, the business management school, and the administrative process
school.

Prelude to Discussion

Gladden (1972) identified various views through which administration, as a discipline, could be approached. The
different views include:

1. constitutional law
2. institutional
3. business economics
4. implementation
5. comprehensive
6. conventional
7. management
8. the generic view
➤ The constitutional view regards administration as a function of organizations concerned mainly with the execution
or implementation of governmental activities. While the institutional view refers to administration as the work of
specific organizations such as health or provincial administration.

➤ The business economics view regards administration as reporting, archives control, and general office organization,
thus the operational routine matters.

➤ The management view holds that administration is limited to specific categories of employees with the purpose of
achieving and fulfilling functional activities.

➤ The implementation view refers to administration as the act of implementation found in forms such as the
administration of legislation or the administration of schools.

➤ The comprehensive view sees the administration as the total product of human behavior toward the realization of
any goal.

➤ The generic view of administration constitutes the functions of public administration.

➤ The functions are generic in nature because of their universal applicability. Furthermore, the generic functions are
also mutually inclusive, implying that collectively they constitute the effective and efficient functioning of the public
service.

The Empirical School of Thought

The empirical school describes administration as the study of theories and opinions about the truths of
administration, discovered through its practice.

The empirical school of thought was evident in countries where the practice of administrative law was apparent, such
as Germany, Britain, and France.

The empirical school of thought can also be closely associated with the historical approach to public administration.
However, the current dynamics of public administration are not taken into consideration and thus, this school of
thought contributes to the historical understanding of public administration, but not necessarily to its current realities.

The School of Human Behavior

The school of human behavior describes how administration takes place among people and intends to determine the
levels of happiness and satisfaction based on various sociological and psychological criteria.

This school of thought bases its assumptions on the principle that an internal need could only be satisfied through an
external expression. Thus, public administration is perceived as an enabler of job satisfaction and happiness.

The foundation for the integrated approach to human resource management has its origins in the school of human
behavior.

The Bureaucratic School The bureaucratic school of thought is based on the principles of Max Weber. He described
the organization as the culmination of the process of historical rationality and bureaucratization of social institutions.

The bureaucracy is a control system based on rational rules that regulate the organizational structure and processes
in compliance with technical knowledge and maximum efficiency.

The Social System School

The social system school, promoted by Chester Bernard, is based on the assumption that organizational units are
comprehensive systems of mutual cooperation, united in a common objective, with both a formal and informal form
of organization.

The terms of the contract can either be expressed in an implicit or explicit agreement about what the organization will
offer in the form of inducements and what will be expected from the individual, in terms of contribution.

This particular school of thought is a basis for the current performance management system implemented in the
public service.

The Decision-making School

The decision-making school proposed by Herbert Simon makes a strong argument for the continuous responsibility
of managers to make decisions.

Only through decisions can correct actions be obtained. Simon used an inductive approach based on logical position
to revise the concept of the decision-maker in order to develop a descriptive model of organizational decision-
making.

According to Simon, once an individual employee decides to participate in an organization, he/she takes on an
organizational personality and the issue of compliance becomes central to the decisions taken.

The Mathematical School

The mathematical school proposes that administrative problems could be analyzed through mathematical simulation
coordination. Models are identified using the variables and their relationships to one another as a basis.
The model is then used to quantify objectives, characterize shortcomings and define the unknown. However, the
human dynamics and changing nature of the current public service cannot be explained in pure mathematical
equations.

The Business Management School

The business management school bases its argument on the ability of the public service to reduce its efficiency to
business principles and apply them to the public service in order to ensure effective and efficient service delivery.
However, if services become privatized, they would longer fall within the realm of public service delivery.

The Administrative Process School

This school of thought is based on the arguments of Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol. Administrative acronyms
SLOCUS (staff, line, organization, communication, unity of command, span of control) and POSDCORB (planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, coordination, reporting, and budgeting) are also proponents of this school of thought.

History of Management Thought

The history of management thought suffers from a constricted definition of its subject. The term thought tends to be
equated to knowledge, and thus given a positivist cast, or described in instrumental terms and thereby reduced to a
generalized form of practice.

The history of management thought, in short, invites more expansive treatment than it has hitherto received.

Concept of Total Quality Management in Administration

An Approach

Total quality management is an approach that an organization takes for improving its performance on a systematic
and continuous basis.

This is achieved by involving all employees throughout the organization in satisfying all requirements of every
customer, whether the customer may be external or internal.

Quality management is the basis for library management in general. Such principles of Total Quality Management
(TQM) as meeting the customers’ needs, exact assessment, continuous improvement, teamwork, and enthusiasm of
the leaders are typical for library service.

Etymology

Total – everyone in the organization is involved in creating and maintaining the quality of the services and products
offered.

Quality – the organization through individual and collective actions focuses on meeting customer needs, recognizing
that customer perception identifies quality.
Management – in managing the system, the emphasis lies on continuously improving the system in order to achieve
the best results.

A Philosophy

TQM is a management philosophy embracing all activities through which the needs of the customer and the
community, and the objectives of the organization, are satisfied in the most efficient and cost-effective way by
maximizing the potential of all employees in a continuing drive for improvement.

A Distinct Feature

As Hopp and Spearman explain, “manufacturing is more than just machinery and logistics – it is people, too.” The
people’s emphasis is arguably the most distinct feature of TQM. According to Deming, managers must “drive out fear
from the workplace.”
By employing the principles of TQM, a public organization may be in a better position to shorten response time,
reduce cost, and increase quality for the ultimate purpose of creating public value.

The Myth

Cohen and Brand (1993) clarify the misconception that TQM can only be used on factory production lines. In fact,
quality improvement teams can be particularly useful in administrative settings, both m and out of government.

They do not, however, argue that the ideas m TQM are particularly new or revolutionary, nor is the emphasis on being
customer-driven unique. Nevertheless, TQM does synthesize important management lessons, thereby creating a
useful and consistent management paradigm.

Industrial & Scientific Management in Administration

Industrial & Scientific Management in administration are two basic concepts in public administration. Henri
Fayol identified six industrial undertakings; among them were technical activities, commercial activities, and financial
activities.

As on, for the six, he included management, which he observed was “quite distinct from the other five. To manage is
to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to control.”

The Concept of Industrial Management

According to Fayol, an organization consists of a social body and a material organism. The “corps social” consists of
persons.

Persons perform activities. Activities can be classified according to their function in the corps social. These functions
are technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting, and managerial.

The managerial function corresponds to a management process that consists of five sub-activities: to plan, to
organize, to coordinate, to command, and to control. These sub-activities are defined as follows:

1. To plan: lay out the actions to be taken.

 2. To organize: lie out the lines of authority and responsibility; build up the dual structure, material, and
human, of the organization.
3. To coordinate: lay out the timing and sequencing of activities…
4. To command: put the plan into action; set the work in operation.
5. To control: monitor and correct; see that everything occurs in conformity with established rules and
expressed command.

Principles
The first five principles explain how the division of work, a clear command structure, and obedience to these
commands can do work most efficiently. The second five principles contain refinements of the first five principles.

Principles 6 and 7 explain the nature of the contracts between the organization and personnel, resulting in a
subordination of the individual interest to the general interest and fair remuneration of personnel.

Organizational Structure
Based on this analysis of the management process, we can conclude that the organizational structure is created by
acts of planning, organization, and coordination. While work is done based on commands and obedience to
commands. Obedience to commands and adherence to rules is stimulated by control activities.

Scientific Management
The broader implications of Scientific Management became clearer after Taylor’s death. In 1915, The work of Frederick
W. Taylor, the engineer, inventor, and publicist who became the first American management theorist to reach a large,
non-technical audience was largely discussed and debated in terms of industrial production.

A decade later, no one would have suggested that scientific management was “just” industrial engineering or even
that its most important impact was on the operation of the factory.

World War I was the most immediate stimulus to a larger perspective. The conversion of substantial groups of
academics and intellectuals to the cause of scientific management.

The continued growth of large organizations with extensive administrative bureaucracies committed to management
as a self-conscious activity was also a significant contributing factor.

The possibilities of improving the performance of non-business institutions also help explain the popularity of the
principles of scientific management.

Comparatively few Americans went as far as Mary Van Kleek, but there was widespread recognition of the possibilities
of economic and social planning.

Principles
1. Inefficiency is a great loss to the country.
 2. The remedy for inefficiency lies in systematic management, not in a search for extraordinary workers.
3. The best management is true science. The fundamentals of scientific management are applicable to all fields
of business activities.

What scientific management is not?

Scientific management is not an efficient device. It is not a new system of figuring costs; it is not a new system of
paying men. It is not holding a stopwatch on a man and writing things down about him. It is neither a motion study
nor an analysis of the movements of men. It is not divided foremanship. It is not any of the devices, which the average
man calls to mind when scientific management is spoken of.

Word for word, scientific management is a complete mental revolution. Scientific management is a dynamic thing; its
principles are the principles of growth and change and hence its progress since the war has been sure and swift.

The Global Reach

Scientific management has attracted surprisingly little attention in the United States in recent years.

Historians and social scientists specializing in European affairs have discovered or rediscovered indigenous scientific
management movements that drew inspiration from the American pioneers but soon developed identities of their
own.

The results of the new scholarship are most striking in the case of France, which had the most ambitious management
movement outside the United States. But impressive studies in German, British, Russian, Italian, and Japanese history
have documented the spread of ideas and techniques once assumed to be peculiarly American.

While it may be premature to speak of an international history of scientific management, it is clear that Taylor found
enthusiastic disciples everywhere and that scientific management measurably affected the performance of
institutions in many countries.