Historical Evolution of Public Administration in the United States - Research Paper Example

Public Administration in the United States Introduction Public administration involves the fair and efficient management of government programs for the purpose of public good. It encompasses organizing people to perform tasks for the accomplishment of the interests of the government such as execution of government policy. It also involves the management of the government’s authority in order to ensure that it is not misused for personal interests (Kettl 2002 p 27). The government uses public servants who are in charge of carrying out activities of public administration. It exercises its authority through these servants, for example in policy development and implementation, development of government budget, data collection and analysis as well as employment amongst other government tasks within various departments that serve the public. Public administration has evolved over a long period of time through the leadership of several people who served as the forces of change. This essay discusses the important events in this evolution as well as the people who influenced this process, such as the "founding fathers" Hamilton, Roosevelt, Wilson, Madison, and Jefferson amongst others. It considers the changing conceptions of the nature and role of government and public bureaucracy as well as how public administration has gone from being public administration to public management and entrepreneurship. The changing traditions, current characteristics, and trends for the future have also been included. Evolution of Public Administration Alexander Hamilton’s conception regarding public administration was that it formed the fundamentals of the political systems in the United States. He believed that public administration entailed all the operations of the three arms of government; that is the executive, judiciary as well as the legislature. He also focused on issues regarding the engagement of the executive arm in the operations involving negotiation with foreign governments, financial issues as well as security as part of public administration (Green 2002 p 544). According to the Hamiltonian tradition, effectiveness in the government is achieved when the government adopts a top-down approach, whereby the executive control is the most powerful (Kettl 2002 p 29). The current executive branch’s strength is attributed to Hamilton who advocated earnestly for the creation of a powerful executive heading a strong government, while on the other hand being limited to avoid abusing the power, thereby intimidating liberty. This was significant in the implementation of government policies since a weak government could not formulate and implement good policies effectively (Stillman 2004 p 36). Even in the modern society, only a strong government can represent the policies of its people effectively. Leadership in public administration has always been core to effective implementation of government policies that represent the interests of the people. Hamilton understood this fact and therefore believed in the powerful executive who would promote unity, with clearly defined roles of the government administrators below him in the programs of the government. This executive was to stay for a certain duration which would be consistent throughout and he/she was also supposed to be competent in representing the people’s interests through effectively accomplishing the policies. Even though he advocated for the independence of the executive, it had to remain answerable through a balance of power in order to check abuse of power (Kettl p 31). Hamilton had also the dream of a manufacturing economy, which is an aspect of entrepreneurship that would help in offsetting the nation’s debts as well as generation of income for the citizens through creation of employment. The powerful executive heading the government would support such entrepreneurship initiatives, which is an indicator of the transformation from public administration to public management and entrepreneurship. Hamilton understood the importance of a strong executive compared to the legislature that was composed of representatives (Milakovich and Gordon 2008 p 67). However, the executive had to be accountable to the people through these representatives. Thomas Jefferson was also a key founder of public administration. His ideologies regarding power in governance were by and large differing with those of Hamilton (Kettl 2002 p 33). While Hamilton focused on giving power to the executive, Jefferson felt that there was the likelihood of abuse of power, and advertently advocated for limitations on the executive power. He advocated for a powerful legislature, establishment of local governance through popular votes. He believed that the interests of the people were represented by the legislature. This meant that empowering the legislature was similar to giving power to the people. This was to mean that the federal government could not be given the authority to exercise power. Rather, states were to exercise this power together with the local authorities. Under the federal system, the state governments would be powerful, with the congress acquiring supremacy. In Jefferson’s point of view, the executive power of the president was similar to a monarchical system that he thought was a threat to liberty. Contrary to Hamilton’s believe, the responsibility was supposed to take a bottom-up approach. However, he is understood to have discarded his own believed and took up leadership in a Hamiltonian perspective later on, especially when he allowed the annexation of Louisiana (p 34). Nevertheless, Jefferson’s ideologies can not completely be ignored. They helped in restraining abuse of power by the executive. The administration is therefore not as powerful as it would have been in the Hamilton’s perspective (p 35). He believed in power separation due to the danger posed by the existence of economic inequality between states. He portended of conflicts in the absence of a powerful, reliable national government. The disagreements in Hamilton and Jefferson’s perspectives of power seem to have been brought to commonality by James Madison who generated the ideology of power balancing between the legislature and the executive (Kettl 2002 p 35). Though he disagreed with Hamilton’s perspective of vesting so much power on the executive, he envisioned the possibility of what Kettl refers to as “mischief of action” and the fact that harmony in the society and the federal government could be weakened by competition amongst states due to political and economic disparities. In his view, adoption of Hamilton’s perspective would encourage totalitarianism. His system brought a balance that made each branch independent of the other. However, accountability in each had to be accomplished through sharing the powers of the legislature to the judiciary, whereby both would be in charge of ensuring that the executive is responsible (p 36). On the other hand, the powers intermingle especially depending on the appointing authority of the Supreme Court and its confirmation, whereby the executive and the congress have a significant role to play, and this can not be achieved without each branch. On the other hand, the president’s tenure is dependent on the congress, whereas on the other hand the executive can reject acts of the legislature (Shafriftz et al p 66). This is an indicator of how a balanced the government branches emerged in terms of power which is important in the prevention of its abuse which may lead to autocracy. Madison’s views differed more with those of Hamilton than they did with Jefferson’s. His ideologies were much more political than Hamilton’s views that were inclined towards administration (Kettl 2002 p 37). Woodrow Wilson’s ideas were focused on the performance of the government, concerning the things that it can be able to do appropriately, and effectively, as well as how these actions can be carried out with the greatest efficiency as possible without incurring unnecessary expenditures in terms of finances or energy (Stillman 2004 p 73). Kettl (2002 p 38) observes that the public welfare was jeopardized by flourishing commercial trusts, which enhanced private power, thereby leading to the development of monopolies that were a threat to free market competition. Such a situation required strong government influence in order to restrain the corporate powers from controlling the market, a move that was advocated for by the progressives (p 39). However, they did not want to jeopardize public interests through vesting too much power on the government, which could be used as a means of progressing individual interests. This could be a recipe for corruption that was undesirable in the system. The problem mainly arose in maintaining a strong government that could control the corporate powers while maintaining democracy (Shafriftz et al p 56). Wilson had the conception that administration and commerce were interrelated. He made substantial contribution to the debates regarding public administration, especially issues concerning the consideration of public administration and political activities as two distinct features of the nation. Most of his articles advocated for separation of the two as well as improvement in the efficiency of public administration through the adoption of professional practices and approaches in the day by day operations. These were to be accomplished through comparing the government and private organizations as well as with the public administration of other nations such as Germany (Milakovich and Gordon 2008 p 68). Private organizations are usually competent in their operations because of their requirements to meet many costs including government taxes while making profits, and also working in a competitive environment. It was therefore a prudent decision to compare government organizations with them, in order to maintain competitiveness even though their expenditures were not the same. This meant that the overall result would be that government organizations would improve their efficiency. Wilson had the strong believe that the government had a significant role to play for the people, hence the need to be powerful, with the administrators acting independently without political influence (Kettl 2002 p 42). The expectations of the Americans are usually high in regard to the performance of public administration due to the taxes that they pay. In the contemporary situation, the welfare of the public rests on the manner in which the government manages the finances, which are mainly raised from the people in form of taxes. His view on the power of the government was similar to that of Hamilton, though he was in favor of the local authorities as Jefferson had believed. Wilson also focused on career development amongst civil servants through constant training and skills upgrading (p 43). The four founders had a significant impact on public administration in the United States. Each had strong believes regarding the best way that the interests of the people can be effectively represented. However, they differed and whenever a balance was reached, there arose different opinions that shifted this balance, and as Kettl (2002 p 43) observes, none maintained an accepted view for long. Opinions regarding the direction of system of government were different to a large extent. The difference is evident from the top-down approach by Hamilton, bottom-up by Jefferson, balanced power by Madison where the system of governance was irrelevant and Wilson whereby the system of governance was to remain but politics had to be different from administration. The views of the four contributed largely to the public administration of the United States. It is the maintenance of a strong bureaucracy that led to the hierarchical structure that is evident in the public administration of the United States. The system of governance is characterized by departments that have been systematized depending on their functions to the government. This hierarchical system has been ingrained in the government as the government continued expanding (Shafriftz et al p 66). However, a different perspective arose with time through different opinions from researchers and political leaders, which led to certain government programs being conducted devoid of the hierarchical structure. These are mainly evident where the government contracts the production of some of its commodities. The shift from direct control of most of the federal governments programs led to the operations being conducted without hierarchies, for example as Kettl (2002 p 45) observes, states would oversee programs independently through grants. The hierarchies were eventually ignored in virtually every government program. Current and Future Trends The activities of the administration are occasionally disapproved by politicians, with the notion that they do not deliver the expectations of the people. There still exists an interconnection between politics and administration which at times hampers the work of public administration. On the other hand the people rest a lot of expectations in the administration and in most cases and in politicians accused of interfering with the role of administrators. Recent studies indicate that people are tending towards building more trust on the federal government and public administrators than the elected representatives (Denhardt and Denhardt 2008 p 66). However, this is not a permanent trust, since it depends on the ability of the government to accomplish the objectives of public administration and satisfaction amongst the public in regard to their interests. Politicians continue to focus on public administration in their campaigns, which is a practice that may end up tarnishing the image of public administration in future. This is because if the government performs to the satisfaction of the public in regard to serving their interests, politicians may not have a weak point to begin their criticism, which helps them to sell their ideologies in order to garner support. Conclusion Public administration has undergone a long period of evolution which has led to the developments that are in the current system. The contributors towards these developments had different opinions, but each of them had a significant impact through his contributions. The Hamiltonian theory focused on the top-bottom approach to bureaucracy which was refuted by Jefferson who was for the opposite. Madison tried to establish a balance which focused on the removal of bureaucracy. It remained for a period of time but in the recent years, this bureaucracy is reducing as the government contracts out some of its programs. Wilson supported the bureaucracy, but mainly focused on the separation of politics from public administration. However, politics are still interfering with public administration and there is need for a change for the purpose of an effective administration in future (Kettl 2002 p 44). In general, each of the founders of public administration has a contribution that was entrenched in the administration to the present. References Denhardt B. R. and Denhardt J. V. Public Administration: An Action Orientation, Wadsworth Publishing, 2008. Green T. R. “Alexander Hamilton: Founder of the American Public Administration”. Administration and Society, 34.5 (2002): 541 Kettl D. F. The Transformation of Governance, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Milakovich M. E. and Gordon G. J. Public Administration in America, Wadsworth Publishing, 2008 Shafriftz J. M., Russell E. W. and Borick C. Introducing Public Administration, Longman, 2008 Stillman R. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, Wadsworth Publishing, 2004George J. Gordon (Author) › Visit Amazon's George J. Gordon PageFind all the books, read about the author, and more.See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Read More