Theory of Administration - Essay Example

Theory of Administration Question 1 The field of public administration is often criticized for lacking an overarching theory. What factors contribute to the disjointed nature of the field? Use the reform movements of new public management and new public service to demonstrate the layered and sometimes conflicted nature of the discipline. Literature review on the public administration discipline reveals that attention to government studies dates back to Antiquity. However, the unprecedented expansion of governments since the early periods of the nineteenth century prompted scholarly attention on the study of public administration as well as political science. Thus, the study of public administration is approximately seventy years old. The desire to understand government operations and explain the growth of government systems has generated dramatic specialization and compartmentalization of information within the public administration discipline. In fact, looking at most of the American handbooks reveals that the study of public administration has numerous specializations. Each of these specializations has its unique theories, models and even interpretations. The main reason the field of public administration lacks an overarching theory is because its study has been moving from a discipline point of view towards interdisciplinary (Hood, 1991). An overwhelming number of researchers in the field of public administration agree that public administration is in a state of identity crisis. For a very long time, questions of policy and politics have dominated the study of public administration but the discipline is currently undergoing far-reaching transformations. The transformations have led to the inclusion of other disciplines including art, science and professionalism. Over the years, multiple forces of rectification have increasingly augmented the conservative forces to create a multidisciplinary orientation of the discipline. These forces include the social and cultural contributions of managerial, organizational and economical influences (Hood, 1991). The merger between the social and cultural influences started a few years ago but has attained critical attention from the mass and public sector in recent times. The best approach to explain the lack of an overarching theory in public administration is to analyze the historical revolution of public administration. Public Administration in Transition: The Evolutionary Process The foundation of contemporary public administration dates back to thousands of years ago. There are numerous historical hierarchical and managerial structures that acted as prototypes for public administration. The most notable systems include the Greek and Roma systems of government. These systems developed as a result of the demand to control vast pieces of land that were being conquered during wars. In the modern age, various empires and cultures including Persia and Ottoman paved the way for modern public administration. All these systems of governance used similar concepts and ideas with regards to public administration. They also used the same methods of governing people and administrating interests and resources. For instance, professionals and experts from various social fields were appointed to positions of administration. Additionally, power and authority was the cheapest system of control for both government institutions and individuals. They also faced similar problems and issues. The revolution from a discipline point of view towards interdisciplinary has been a conspicuous experience in the field of public administration. The reason is that governments have been facing rapid economic, social and technological changes. In fact, globalization has been the most common experience that governments all over the world have been experiencing since the emergence of the public administration discipline. In response to these rapid changes, several governments have adopted comprehensive public sector reforms in an effort to remain effective and efficient. Consequently, these reforms have developed objectives and established incentives that promote excellent performance and transparency. For instance, governments opened parastatals to new ideas including competition and privatization. Governments also introduced performance contracts to achieve accountability and promote performance. These changes came about as a result of the emergence of new public management and new public service reform movements. A. New Public Management Before a person works in the public service, they are first taken through the implementation of government policies. Civil servants who are well qualified for their respective positions go through public administration training in order to understand all the operations in the public administration (Warner). There are various reform movements that have been advocating for changes in the public administration. One of these reforms as suggested by the movement is to have public administration courses in schools. This is a course that has so far been started by some countries but is yet to be established in others. This type of training will give students all the knowledge they will require in public management and administration. Sometimes, the training offered before employees start working is not enough. With a full course in school, all students will be well equipped for their respective duties in the public service. Training will also open the student's eyes and see the changes that are required in the public service. This will lead to the students coming up with new proposals and changes that will bring positive change in public administration. When the public is administered by well qualified and trained personnel, it will be a success, and there will be minimal cases of wrongdoing or failure (Cohen, 2001). In the new reform, the movement also suggests that the entire public administration should go through some changes. Some of the systems that are being used are old and outdated. The new reforms suggest that administration and management of the public service should go through some changes. Information technology should be implemented. There should be new people in the offices that understand the current changes in technology and would make the entire service more reliable. Professionalism, competence and good work ethics will also be achieved with highly trained officers and with changes in the functionality of the service (Feldman). Under qualified personnel should also be replaced with qualified personnel. People in the public service tend to relax since they are civil servants and do not want to further their studies. They should be replaced with more qualified people who are willing to serve the public service better. For the people who have reached their retirement time, they should do so and give way to other new people. There are some people in the public service, who after getting to retirement offer to continue working (Yang). This is not fair because there are new and more qualified people are willing to work for the people but do not have the chance. The more these people stay in the public, the higher the number of cases of incompetence, dishonesty and corruption is reported. In order to reduce the type of crisis in the public service, there should be a proper and a serious administration and management. It should put all employees on their toes so that they can fit in all the new reforms of the public service. When these reforms are well implemented, management and administration of public service will be more effective and reliable. People are going to enjoy the type of services that will be offered. B. New Public Service The public service aims at providing services to the people living within the government jurisdiction by either providing direct or indirect service. There have been various reforms in the public service sector. The reforms aim at making the public service moiré reliable and to offer better and quality services to its people. These reforms have been pushed by the public service reform movement. It has highlighted all the shortcomings in the public service sector and has identified some of the reforms that should be part of the public service theory (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). One of the public service reforms is to have a new public management. This is splitting large bureaucracies into much smaller and fragmented ones. It also includes competition in different public agencies and private firms. With this kind of fragmentation, it will be easy to administer all the small bureaucracies. They are going to be easily management to provide good and better results. This reform was driven by the fact that there were some parts in the public service that were being ignored and would be considered insignificant yet they were playing a role in the public service. After the division, they would be acknowledged, and more attention will be offered (Cohen, 2001). The second reform in the public service theory would be competition in the delivery of services. According to Denhardt and Denhardt (2000), all departments in the public service should be graded in a particular format depending on how they deliver various services. This will help in reducing monopoly in the sector as each department will be doing its best to emerge as the bet. This way the public will benefit more from this reform decision-making in the public sector has always been fixed. Completion with the private sector is also advised (TPO7). This will enable the government run agencies to work hard in order to compete with private firms in terms of service delivery. Although some of the public service departments are monopolies, it will be a good and fair competition because they will all be on different lanes. The public will also receive more information on alternative to public services. This will also increase competition and the quality of services offered. The general public will have the chance to compare costs and choose the best suitable ones for their needs (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). In these new reforms, there will bore flexibility in the sector. Decisions will be made by all stakeholders represented by some of their own. This will ensure all needs from all stakeholders are put in place and that there will be no biases. Before the reforms, the people responsible for decision-making would ignore the needs of their clients because they were not aware of the needs or chose to ignore them for their benefit. With a representative present at the decision-making panel, all problems will be identified, and possible solutions offered depending on the needs of the people. Budgets are also part of the reform. The public service sector has been failing over the past due to mismanagement of funds. There were cases where funds were not accountable for. This has led to corruption and misunderstanding in the sector. This is why, in the reforms charter, prepare budgeting has been emphasized. Every department should prepare its budget ahead of every financial year. This will ensure that funds are well allocated and that services are offered well. Without a budget, some departments will overestimate their spending while others could be highly affected due to lack of funds since their funds are underestimated. Budgets will also boost competition. In order for this to be effective there should be more emphasis on economic and leadership principles. These are principles that will not only be applied in the preparation of budgets but also in all other reforms. They are the major force behind the success of the public sector (CPA 46,54). This means that only qualified people should be given correct positions. This will ensure competence, professionalism, and good work ethics in the public service. It has been highly criticized in many countries. There are some countries that have already begun on implementing these reforms in order to improve their public service, so far, it has been successful and the people are enjoying the competitiveness in the departments and competition with the private sector. It is not easy to have all the reforms at once, but if implemented step by step; the public service would be more reliable and would offer better services to its people (TPO 6). Question 2 The lack of an overarching theory of administration can be seen as an indictment of the field, but from the perspective of management, might also provide some advantages. Identify how three of the following subfields of public administration can be used to better understand public organizations. Describe the differences in methodological approaches or theoretical perspectives of these subfields, as well as the potential for these fields to complement one another. (In other words, how has the presence of different perspectives within the discipline of public administration furthered our understanding of public organizations?) The new millennium presents new social problems that require the attention of the state as well as its administrative system. Thus, the question of independence or using an overarching theory of public administration is less important in the current context than in the past. Instead, from a management perspective, the multidisciplinary orientation of the public administration field enhances its ability to complement the current ethos of public administration. The reason is that such overarching theories provide tools, ideas and methods that can be used to address social issues and even create effective remedies for the new challenges facing the state. The other advantage of lack of an overarching theory is that the interdisciplinary nature of the field of public administration can be translated into cooperation, sharing of information and collaboration. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the current multi-system analysis of public administration is the main frontier of modern public administration. The interdisciplinary nature public administration provides sheds some light on the complex nature of the field of public administration. This is possible through a combination of various levels of analysis to form an integral whole. Such an approach is in a better concurrence with the reality. Additionally, such knowledge makes us have a better understanding of how individuals manage the state and the executive branches. It also makes understand some of the challenges that these individuals face in their efforts to achieve better public performance. Therefore, the most important task for public administration scholars is to illuminate the interdisciplinary nature of public administration so ensure that there is greater effectiveness and efficiency in the management of public resources in future generations. It is obvious that future generations will experience higher environmental pressures and citizen demands and needs than the current generation. Thus, the interdisciplinary nature of the current public administration will merit to be used in the context of rapid changes. The reason is that the current interdisciplinary state of public administration stimulates new and viable thinking that has led to the innovation and development of new ideas. The following theories best explain the contributions of the current interdisciplinary approach of public administration: 1. Neoclassical theory The end of the Second World War motivated scholars to question the underlying principles of classical public administration. The group of scholar was led by Herbet Simon. Simon is famous for his dissertation Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making in Administrative Organization. He was a fierce critic of classical public administration and was developing an alternative theory. His dissertation contained some of the most common words that were being used during the post-war era. These words included organization, decisions and behaviour (COT 11). According to Simon, the principles of public administration are inconsistent proverbs that come from the use of common sense. He was against the idea that principles of public administration were scientific. Simon believed that the foundations of public administration lie in the ability of scholars using rigorous as well as scientific observation. Additionally, he also believed that the foundation of public administration could be derived from the laws of human behaviour. According to his ideas, there was a need for scholars to separate pure science from applied science because he believed in the existence of facts separate from value judgments. Thus, his ideas implied that people can control the social environment using scientific knowledge. Simon’s ideas motivated a host of other scholars and encouraged them to study behaviour and decision making in organizations that have administrative systems. Consequently, the studies of these scholars led to the development of new and precise vocabulary as well as research methodology. Thus, there was the emergence of neoclassical public administration theory that adhered to the trends of systems theory, behaviourism and structural functionalism (COT 18). Additionally, the theory employed the theoretical ideas of decision theory and welfare economics (COT 12). Even though neoclassical theory gained prominence after the Second World War, government reformers continued to use classical theory. For instance, they streamlined and consolidated organizations and jurisdictions. Additionally, they also unified and strengthened executive power. However, the most conspicuous event of the period was the introduction of the concepts of planning, program and budgeting. These concepts were developed with the belief that central planning was a key factor in the optimization of the national administration (COT 15). Neoclassical public administration theory altered its standards and methodologies progressively but relied on the principles of the classical theory of public administration. Thus the theory adapted itself to the principles of classical public administration theory and used them to enhance budgeting, auditing, performance measurement, and rationalizing the jurisdictions of organizations (COT 13). Thus, the main contribution of neoclassical theory of public administration was the increasing focus on analysis and the adoption of a rational and analytic style of management. Consequently, the bureaucratic style of management was being abandoned after the emergence the neoclassical theory of public administration. At the end of 1960’s, the field of public administration was in disarray because there existed three lines of thoughts. They included the classical line, the neoclassical school of thought and political line of thought. However, the neoclassical theory of public administration still championed for an active state and a focus on objective knowledge. The only difference is that it had a different approach; one that focused on the laws of human behaviour (COT 15). Neoclassical theory has made tremendous contributions to the understanding of human behaviour in an organizational setting. For instance, the theory has generated awareness of the overwhelming influence of human factor in public administration. The neoclassical approach has led to the development of new ideas and techniques that public administrators can use to understand human behaviour in organizations that have administrative systems (COT 14). It has made people recognize organizations as social systems that can be influenced by the sentiments and cultural values of members. Other factors that can affect the performance of an organization include group dynamics, participation, job environment and motivation. The most notable contribution of the neoclassical theory is changing the initial perception that employees were tools. Instead, the theory enlightened administrators about the importance of employees and managers started considering employees as valuable resources. Neoclassical theory also laid the foundation of management theory. 2. Organizational behaviour The human relations movement of the 1930s led to the emergence of the organizational behaviour theory approach to public administration. The human relations movements developed from the dissatisfaction individuals were developing towards traditional approaches to public administration. These approaches focused on institutions, organizations, codes of conducts and rules with no mention of people who were performing all the activities at every level of management. The emergence of scientific management and the pioneering works of Taylor created a stir in the industrial sector as well as in the study of public management. At that time, the field of public administration was lacking an overarching theory that could bind its researchers and scholars together (CAP 48). During the emergence of the idea of scientific management, Henry Fayol was also working on his general theory of business administration commonly referred to as Fayolism (COT 10). Consequently, Fayol and Taylor developed different functions and principles of management. They developed ideas such as team spirit, unity of command, equity and discipline. However, Herbort Sumon introduced the study of administrative behaviour in the public administration studies and behavioural sciences. He posited that the study of public administration could not be complete without the study of individual as well as group human behaviour in an administrative context. Some of the salient features of the behavioural approach to public administration include: Administrative systems pay attention to aspects such as motivation, control, decision making and authority Administrative systems place emphasis on informal organization and communication patterns of employees It heavily borrows ideas from social sciences, cultural anthropology and social psychology The organizational behaviour approach to public administration makes a lot of sense and is more relevant than earlier approaches to the public administration discipline. The reason is that it appreciates the fact that various aspects of environment including the society, economy, politics, and psychology affect human motivation. Anything that affects human motivation ultimately influences an individual’s output (COT 34). Additionally, the organizational behaviour approach also readers understand the actions of public administrators in terms of what, how and why they take certain actions. The approach reveals that human sentiments, perception and presumption biases influence the conduct of administration. It is a reality that we learn the influence of human nature on the actions of public administrators when we interact with them (COT 35). The organizational behaviour approach to public administration has made immense contributions to the field of public administration. For instance, scholars started exploring cross-cultural administrative behaviours thus paving the way for the comparative study of public administration. The current organizational behaviour approach emphasizes on decisions, results and the political skills required to perform a managerial job (COT 9). 3. Economic and Power theories According to the progenitors of public administration, the principles of public administration were vested in the power of the law. The people’s representatives make laws and delegate the responsibility of executing these laws to the competent hands of bureaucrats possessing the highest qualifications (COT 33). These professionals work with the best tools and resources to ensure that they discharge the law according to the highest professional standards. In return, they produce results that benefit the people. The legal approach to public administration assumes that public administration involves the application and enforcement of the law to concrete circumstances. Additionally, it also assumes that public administration is infused with legal concerns. The legal approach to public administration derives its principles from three sources of literature that are interrelated. The first source of information is administrative law that controls administrative processes (COT 37). The second source is constitutional law that redefines the rights and liberties of individuals. Finally, there is the jurisdiction of public administration that makes administrative processes look like courtroom procedures. The power of public administration arises from the fact that administrative systems are synonymous to regulative systems (COT 32). Public administration tells people what they can do and what they cannot do. That is the power of public administration. Administrative systems enjoy the support of constitutional systems but they do not account for the effectiveness or efficiency of these public administrative systems. In a layman’s language, laws are necessary but they are not adequate in creating an effective public service (COT 36). Economic theory explains the allocation of limited resources in an efficient and effective manner. It also explores how the people as well as the government can use limited resources to create wealth. On the other hand, public administration provides direction on how individuals as governments can distribute wealth. The application of economic theory to public administration ensures that government officials improve their systems of governance and institutions of administration (COT 31). The improvement ensures that they strengthen their capacity to make policies and improve government machinery. Public administration relies on economic theory to solve societal problems. Thus, economic theory ensures that public administrators discover and effectively respond to the challenges that are emerging from globalization. Public administration continues to explore new horizons as revealed by the shift from classical to economic theory through neoclassical and organizational behaviour theory. The current interdisciplinary orientation of public administration presents the opportunity to pull public administration out of its stagnant position. Its current interdisciplinary nature may lead it towards a more solid scientific position in the coming generations (COT 29). In fact, an overwhelming number of researchers believe that the field of public administration is gaining from the seminal input of different theoretical principles. Managerial and organizational theory offers the greatest benefit to the field of public administration (COT 44). For instance, the integration of management and behavioural theory enables the society to question the obligations of public administrative systems towards its employees as well as citizens. In the process, society urges public administrators to put people first (COT 27). Thus, the field of public administration is increasingly becoming relevant to the needs of the citizens through its adoption of a myriad of theories. It appeals to the emotions and perceptions of the citizens through the inclusion of neoclassical theory and organizational behaviour theory (COT 26). Read More