ROSENBLOOM: “Public Administrative Theory and Separation of Powers,” discusses all three approaches and how this is a central problem public administrative theory. Each has its own origins and values, organizational structure and view of the individual. These approaches tend to mirror the separation of powers found in the Constitution.
KETTL: In 1993, the author analyzed the state of public administration for the American Political Science Association’s book, Political Science: The State of the Field. This article reviews the state
of public administration at the start of the new millennium: thefield’s big theoretical questions, enduring theoretical ideas, and
its unanswered theoretical puzzles. In the middle of the twentieth century, public administration found itself under attack by both
academics and practitioners for theory that provided only weak guidance. New approaches developed in the last third of the century—notably formal theory, network theory, and the “new public
management”—have helped bridge the gap. In the end, however, the field’s enduring problems are rooted deeply in historic conflicts in the American political tradition. These conflicts make it
unlikely that the field will ever be able to escape the struggles that have long bedeviled it. But an understanding of the ways
political tradition shapes administrative theory—and of the ways that administrative theory bring political traditions to life—helps
provide keen insight into the theoretical issues that matter most. At the beginning of the new millennium, public administration sits squarely in an historical paradox. It is a proud parent,
both intellectually and organizationally, of the professional study of administration. The modern American state owes its basic
structure and processes to the contributions public administration made. On the other hand, scholars are fighting over its identity, relevance, and focus. Meanwhile, practicing administrators who
once would not have dreamed of launching a new program or restructuring an old one now often press boldly ahead without
seeking the field’s counsel. Within both the academic and public 7/Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryPublic Administration at the Millennium
policy communities, public administration is struggling to reassert its former intellectual predominance and redefine its foundations. Public administration builds from a self-evident importance.
Bold policy ideas cannot go far without solid implementation. Elected officials the world over are seeking to reinvent and
otherwise reform their bureaucracies because government performance has become even more politically crucial. Administration has, at least since Moses, been important (Wildavsky 1984).
It has become only more central since. If spiraling social complexity has made government and its administration even more important, what ideas ought to guide the task of making government work? And if the field’s driving ideas seem out of sync with the needs of government managers and with the dominating approaches of its related disciplines, what—if anything—should be done to change public administration’s theories?
APPLEBY: “Government is Different,” provides another approach, the Political Approach. Appleby explains that government is different because it is a system and a system cannot be understood except in terms of public employees themselves, their conceptions of their positions, and the attitudes of the public about what is required in and from civil servants. Public servants need to have a public-interest attitude with certain special characteristics. Any man of inclinations who has had organizational and executive experience would be a superior prospect for success as a public official for the reason that he would, almost inevitably, have developed breadth of view and a public interest attitude.
WILSON: p. administration is a field of business. The object of administrative study is to rescue executive methods from confusion and costliness and set them upon foundations embedded in stable principles. Wilson notes that administration should lie outside the sphere of politics. Although politics set the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices. He also explains that administration differs from constitutional law. Public administration is detailed and systematic execution of public laws.
WEBER: The first is that the scope of any bureaucracy is bound by laws and regulations. The second notes the strict, authoritarian hierarchy followed by all bureaucracies. The third notes theimportance of record-keeping; here also, he goes on to imply that the work of the bureaucracy should be impersonal – the personal concerns and affairs of the apparatchik should not be mixed
with one’s official duties. The fourth characteristic states that all members must be thoroughly trained in their positions, and number five is something of a reiteration of the third’s secondary
point – the work of the official and the office are primary. With the sixth and final characteristic, Weber makes a second noteworthy statement: “The reduction of modern office management to
rules is deeply embedded in its very nature.” Just as the existence and authority of the bureaucracy are defined by laws and regulations, the internal management and work of the bureaucracy is defined by its own rules – exhaustive and unchanging.
TAYLOR: argues that developing the right system through scientific principles is far more important for productivity than simply giving workers large incentives to work their hardest and with good will. To implement a new scientifically based system, Taylor maintains that management must: 1) replace workers’ old rules of thumb with a science for each part of a man’s work, collect data, analyze information and frame laws and rules, 2) scientifically train and select each worker, know their character, nature and limitations in order to allow opportunities for advancement and reach the greatest level of efficiency, 3) cooperate with workers to ensure that duties are carried out scientifically, and 4) divide work and responsibility almost equally between management and workers instead of assigning too much of both to workers.
GULICK: corrects some of Taylor’s recommendations regarding unity of command, the lack of which creates confusion and inefficiency, and examines issues related to span of control. He also points out the danger of technical experts assuming authority in fields where they have no competence, leading to inefficiency. The third part concerns organizational patterns and the view of the organization as both a subdivided enterprise
SIMON: : 1) specialization, 2) unity of command, 3) limiting the span of control, and 4) organization by purpose, process, clientele, and place. Simon applies the tools of economic analysis to public administration, examining the inherent trade-offs within and between such widely accepted principles. For example, Simon shows that limiting the span of control on one hand and minimizing levels of the hierarchy for fast decision-making on the other each have benefits, but are contradictory, forcing trade-offs and requiring cost-benefit analysis to resolve.
He also introduces the crucial role of bounded rationality, or limits on the amount of information and computational ability that decision-makers have. Simon describes these limitations in terms of: 1) individual skills, habits, and reflexes which are no longer in the realm of the conscious, 2) values and those conceptions of purpose which influence decision-making, and 3) the extent of knowledge of things relevant to one’s job. Gulick and Taylor failed to properly recognize and address the role of bounded-rationality in organizational theory, as well as inherent trade-offs between accepted administrative principles, making Simon’s article a major contribution to the literature.
GOODNOW: Goodnow’s article discusses the strain and immense difficulty in managing the will of the state and the execution of that will. He begins by stating that there are three branches of government which apply and form the law, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. He continues by saying that the foundation of our government in this way is limiting and is part and parcel the reason for agonized gridlock and over utilization of all branches. Meaning that, the constant flow in and out of politically elected or appointed officials in an administration does not allow for efficient and well organized decisions or continuity. In this manner, he then asserts that there should not be the conventional 3 branches, but that there should be two branches, Politics and Administration. He asserts that our elected officials are set in place to articulate and make known the will of the state; he calls this “politics”. Conversely, officials and other responsible entities in our government are prescribed the handling of the enforcement and action in making sure the will is enacted. This is the “administration”. The administration is cited with the technical aspects of government. Goodnow argues that politics and administration can never be separated in our society and that the administrative pieces should play second fiddle to the political side, since the will of the state is the guiding light. In this vein, politics serves only to express the will of the people. The argument for advocating this is to release the administration from the bindings of politics and to ensure that the work continues regardless of who may be in political power. Put the experts in their field in control of administration, and leave the politics to be fluid like the minds and will of the state. Additionally, Goodnow suggests that the judicial powers of government should reside in the administrative part, free of the burdens of the political battlefield and on point to decide policy on a constitutional level without the need to sway the will of the state. He found administration of justice needed to be autonomous of political winds in the same way management of the system did. This was a highly progressive idea, which is even more relevant today with the limited approvals of Supreme Court justices during a Presidency. He surmised that judges should be interpreters of the constitution, and designers of law, not pawns in a political chess game. In the end, this system removes bias and influence from the effective management of an executive system, be it large of small.
FREDERICKSON: In contrast to Goodnow, Frederickson conveys the needs for the social conscience in the administration of an executive branch of government. Frederickson argues for social equity to be the guiding principal of administration and the decision making leader of the political process. Public administration is the coordinated management of the services for efficiency in implementation. The concentration has been on management from the top to the bottom. The old mantras may suggest that we work within a budget to provide the maximum value for the bottom dollar, but the New Public Administration asks us to seek social equity in that equation. NPA charges administrators to seek equity in their constituents first and foremost as they apply new ideas and executive actions. The main avenues to consider for the NPA are: 1.The Distributive Process, which deals with the external distribution of goods. 2. The Integrative Process, which seeks to remove hierarchical systems and put in places teams to get work done effectively. 3. The Boundary Exchange Process, which allows for special team to work in areas where bureaucracy already exists to assist in completing jobs. 4. The Socio emotional process which includes lowering an individual’s reliance on hierarchy, enabling him to tolerate conflict and emotions, and prepare him to take greater risks. At the end of this lies the chance for Public Administration to become more of “change agent” in the world by effectively advocating for those that politics leave marginalized. The social equity piece would allow those who are at the fringes of society in terms of safety, education, protection and health care to be brought onto an even playing field by fair minded administrators who truly advocate for “all men are created equal”.
KATZ AND KAHN: describe social organizations as open systems, dependent on relationships and the external environment for new energy, while also using stored energy to combat entropy and perpetuate the cycle.
DOWNS: discusses the bureau maturation process and the initial autonomy and fervor that must be obtained for existence. Creating a niche, building on momentum, and combatting personnel turnover are critical for bureau survival
MASLOW: brought the idea to light first. He also researched the idea of needs motivating employees. “Basic needs,” as Maslow wrote, included “physiological” needs, safety needs, love needs, esteem needs, and the need for self-actualization. He and McGregor mirror ideas and ways to motivate employees instead of the typical ones. Maslow created a solid foundation, and could have expounded on what McGregor ended up putting forth later.
Overall, these works brought forth the ideas of representative bureaucracy, unionization in the public sector, and human motivation. These theories shape public administration and how individuals relate to government. The correlation between human motivation/excellent management and unionization/collective bargaining struck me as something to build on and require additional research. If companies and those in management positions look to fulfill the needs of their employees, would the need for unions and collective bargaining still be there? Would representative bureaucracy influence unions/collective bargaining rights? The links between behavioral sciences and social sciences offer an avenue of additional research influencing the future of business and government.
KEY: Key asserts that the basis of budgeting is how to effectively allocate all expenditures in order to achieve the greatest return. In order to accomplish this, the basic problem with budgeting is how to determine how and what money goes to activity A instead of activity B. During this decision policy and budget makers must also consider when formulating a budget that public money must be committed to programs that ultimately bring back the most return or “social utility”. Key also divides the budgetary process into an economic and political one and in the article he asserts that the use of the two ultimately helps policy and budget makers decide on what money goes where and how it is spent amongst a variety of proposed programs. Key concludes that ultimately in the budgeting process, “training and working assumptions of these officials to en that they budget must be about public interest”.
CAIDEN: Caiden asserts that in formulating a budget, the best way to go about the process is to make year to year adjustments and by using the process of incrementalism, predictability in the year to year changes are easier to work with. Caiden also refers to the process of raising revenues and how the impact of raising revenues can have on the overall economy; eventually forcing individuals to no longer demand public goods. Caiden also talks about the many challenges of formulating a budget and the implications of doing so by listing the unknowns/unanswered questions surrounding the instability and uncertainty that is brought with budget formulation. Caiden says there is no real clear cut way of determining where and how public money is spent because the budget is a very integrated process and the money contained within the budget is tied to many things making the process of balancing a budget very difficult. Caiden also says that the budget is the biggest weapon for controlling government however; there is no set standard as to what the best execution process is and how to address changes.
KINGDON: Kingdon’s main question is why do decision makers pay more attention to one thing rather than another and how does is this process of determining what program is going to get more attention over other programs. Kingdon surveys the decision-making process and reviews how certain topics within in government achieve more precedence over other topics. In his article he reviews various topics and has previously reviewed literature to come up with the conclusion that topics within government are prioritized based on three principals: problem recognition, generation of policy proposals and political events. Problem recognition is defined by Kingdon as exorable march of problems pressing on a system which are driven by factors or indicators i.e. a crisis or prominent event that might signal the emergence of such problems. Generation of policy proposals is defined as the gradual accumulation of knowledge and perspectives among specialists in any given policy area and the generation of policy proposals by such specialists. An example of this is development of a new technology in order to mitigate a wide spread problem. And lastly, political events is defined as political process change agendas i.e. swings in national mood, vagaries of public opinion, election results etc may have lasting effects on the Congressional agenda.
LIPSKY: important role that individuals play in the process of implementation and ultimately argues that a majority of policies are carried out by “discretionary actions of public employees” (street-level bureaucrats) deciding who gets what (services and benefits/sanctions), how they get it, and to what extent (Lipsky 1980, 412). The author also suggests that most citizens encounter government through connections with street level bureaucrats like teachers, law enforcement officials, and health care providers. Furthermore and because of the sheer number that exist (and financial resources devoted to them), the author contends that street-level bureaucrats dominate political controversies, have grown over time due to substitution of private sector charity, and play a more important role in the lives of citizens as the level of income of that individual decreases. Lipsky also uses a case study to examine implementation. In this instance, the case is used to review other attributes and characteristics of street-level employees. Lipsky reviews what happens when fiscal crises touches cities and further concludes that street-level bureaucrats have a greater ability to lobby, cajole, and bargain to prevent loss of public sector jobs. This is attributed to large reach of such programs and a perceived fear from the public that services that promote safety and well-being will be lost. Lipsky ultimately concludes that street-level bureaucrats have significant discretion when carrying out their implementation responsibilities which ultimately will impact people’s lives.
Pressman and Wildavsky suggested that the implementation process can essentially break down prior to its start. In addition, they suggest that a number of issues including: the passage of time (circumstances change, goals alter, initial conditions slip), breakdowns in one stage of the implementation process, and who has to act on implementation (and how many) can cause a failure to follow through or “implementation failure”. Although focused largely on other areas of implementation, the authors spend a short period of time discussing the necessity of “clearances” and the importance implications that individuals have on the process of implementation.
Lipsky’s work highlights the idea, that in the study of Public Administration, it is important to never underestimate, look past, or ignore the role that individuals (street-level bureaucrats) play in the implementation of programs. All too often, as Pressman and Wildavsky note, the focus is on the policy or larger steps of the implementation process and not, as Lipsky highlights, on the important implementation role of the individual. Overall, the authors ask and answer important questions about the realities and challenges of the implementation of public policy.
ROHR: “Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Value” examines how a public administration curriculum could best teach ethics. This essay, written four years after the Watergate scandal, posits that administrators have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, so they should make decisions based on what he calls “regime” or societal values. He values an education that teaches these values so that administrators will consider the larger picture when making decisions, and hopefully remove themselves from a position of advancing personal or political orthodoxies
THOMPSON: explores “The Possibility of Administrative Ethics” in an essay that scrutinizes and challenges the ethics theories of neutrality (administrators should abide by “the decisions and policy of the organization”) and structure (organizations not individuals should be held accountable for policies and decisions). He says that “independent moral judgment” and “individual moral agency” are necessary for ethics in public administration
LEWIS:
1. A commonsense approach that is based on conscience and learned behaviors;
2. A principle-based approach or deontological reasoning that is based on an individual’s fundamental moral values;
3. A results-oriented approach or teleological reasoning that focuses on consequences and outcomes.
personagrata999 