Public Administration Theories - Research Paper Example

Public Administration al Affiliation This document discusses public administration theories that have evolved over time, embracing each other’s ideas, criticizing, and rejecting to form newer perspectives according to changes in the environment based on social, economic, and political aspects. Public administration (PA) has been one aspect of the administration field, focused on addressing public interests through the public policies. It has been divided into three branches namely; classical public administration, post modern public administration, and new public management theories, all having been developed through association of different contributing theorists, in their related work and ideas in development. However, new public management (NPM) overrides the earlier new public administration (NPA) and develops to cover wide areas of management functions. Classical Public Administration establishes principles and structures of organizations, which should guide in public administration, while the NPA counters classical PA through anti positivist, anti technical, and anti bureaucratic aspects and propose for relevance, change, values, and equity goals in public administration. NPM brings in the aspect of governments to operate just like businesses and relies on price change and neo Taylorism theories. Post modernism proposes for active participation of citizens or the society in dialogue and debates of public policies, before and during implementation to reflect their needs. It is build upon Haberman discourse theory. Finally, the paper draws a conclusion between public and private sectors. Keywords: Public Policy, Public Administration, Managers, New Public Administration, Classical Public Administration, New Public Management, Post Modern Public Administration, Organizations, Government, Principles, Change, Theory, Public and Private Sectors, Business, Efficiency Introduction Public administration is only a specific part of the broad concept of administration. In the past, people and even scholars have had differences in agreeing to which field the study best fits. Some argued that it best fits in science, while others believed it was an art or philosophy. Basically, since the scientific study of the facts of administration exist, it makes it a science, just as a field of philosophy, it deals with human beings and their management, and due to practical application of knowledge, it then becomes attached to art. The word administration focuses its attention on the cooperativeness of groups’ behavior to generate the basis value, which is efficiency. Therefore, whether administration applies to public or private domains, the principle aim was designed to achieve efficiency. Consider any complex or simple activity that has to be accomplished by different groups of people, say group A and B. It is obvious that the groups will each have to use a particular technique, probably different to achieve the end goal. The interest here is ‘how’ they would have to develop a strategy (how the technique of accomplishing the task would be chosen, how certain individuals were selected to participate in certain subtasks and not the others, how division of activities was reached, and how the cooperation would be achieved to coordinate the members’ efforts) (Simon, Smithburg &Thompson, 1991). From the concept, administration seems to be purposive, involving cooperation of individuals aiming to achieve a goal; hence a single individual carrying out the task is not an administrative activity, because it lacks cooperation enforced by several people. The definition of public administration is debatable and varies in the application of the public domain. The meanings conveyed indicate a transformation from an older perspective to a modern one that views it in a broader sense, though related in the responsibilities attached to governmental policies and programs, and how to implement them. According to Naidu, the study of management is concerned with public agencies that implement public policies so as to accomplish the purposes of the state in the public interest (1996). The meaning of various definitions of public administration give a related concept, but vary in the scope and range of activities, some putting more emphasis on implementation of law and public policies, some stressing on its activities to coincide with those of the administrative or executive arms only, others on coordination of the efforts and roles in administration, while other comprehensive definitions combine most of the mentioned aspects, as well as the social and political systems relation to public administration. As a study, it prepares people to serve in managerial levels in executive arms, whether of federal government, state, or even in local levels. According to Hughes, public administration is the use of combined knowledge from political, managerial, and legal theories and other processes to execute government arm’s (legislative, judicial, and executive) mandate in a society through provisions of service and regulatory functions (2003). The challenging area of study elaborates how decisions in authorities addressing public affairs are made, the structure, and administrative function. It also assists to explain the power use and how projects are administered to put decisions into action. The theories are classified according to time, and demonstrate the changes public administration has come to embrace. Classical Public Administration Theory The theory is the main foundation of other developed administration theories. It was a contribution of numerous theorists (such as Henry Fayol, Gulick, Mooney, and Urwick among others) from the 18th to mid 19th century. According to Basu, it is concerned with the formal organization structure and holds that an organization can achieve its objectives, by being established on certain universal fundamental principles; therefore, the theory tries to convince the society on the use of the formulated principles in organizations, so as to experience utmost efficiency and economy (2004). In Fayol’s contribution to public administration, he developed the concept of management being associated with human activities, from which he categorized organization’s activities, and facilitated the development of the organization structure that would entail a higher and lower authority. Fayol put across management to comprise of planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling activities, which are simply enforced by the 14 fundamental principles (Basu, 2004). Fredrick Taylor also contributed through the development of scientific management, raising his concern for efficiency through planning improving human effort at his level of work, and standardizing to realize the best method of carrying out a task, in order to enhance productivity in organizations (Manithaneyam, n.d). Taylor came up with four principles of scientific management (equal division of work, cooperation among workers, scientific selection of workers and facilitation of training for further development, and development of science to every element of a man’s work), flow of order through the functional foremanship, division of work for the management and the workers, and the qualities of a good leader. Mooney and Reiley’s contributions also focused on organizations principles, emphasizing on coordination in the structure of organization. According to Naidu, the four principles were coordinative, scalar, functional, and staff line (1996). The core message here was that every organization had a superior and subordinate relationship as demonstrated by the hierarchical order, hence the grading of duties would differ according to the hierarchical order, but in the overall, there should be cooperation from the superior authority to the least of the workers, as leadership and delegation of tasks are facilitated. This is the scalar principle that allows the universal process of coordination. Other notable theorists were Gulick and Urwick, who had been involved in addressing managerial and administration challenges in the United States during President F. Roosevelt’s time, and whose various contributions to public administration were greatly influenced by Fayol and Taylor (Naidu, 1996). Gulick developed ten principles of organizations, besides coining the word POSDCORB (meaning planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting) to refer to executive or managerial duties; Urwick also enumerated 8 principles to guide the organization stressing on scalar principle for effective line of authority (Basu,2004). Analytically, the theorists’ works seem to ignore the human element in organization and where addressed, the human resource is viewed as a means to achieve an objective. An administration is viewed as formal structural arrangement sharing common administrative principles, despite being public or private, and public administration as a non political, technical organization (Naidu, 1996).Division of work and departmentization was emphasized by all to allow worker specialization, and various tasks being carried out by different people. The theory also stresses on hierarchy, coordination, and efficiency. An association of individuals is what makes an organization; when the relation and flow of instructions are strengthened, accomplishment of tasks can be efficient through the cooperation of workers. New Public Administration (NPA) Theory The theory demonstrates a shift of focus from science association to value content in public administration, considering the human behavior to initiate a social change. The development of this theory was a product of the Minnow brook youth conference of 1968, where the younger scholars challenged the previous public administration ideas to have embraced pluralist political science; it endeavored in discovery of faults in the traditional model, to identify its limitation and narrowness of its scope (Denhardt, 2011). The theory brought about the aspect of having the administrators engage more actively in public policies development, due to the need to attend to the changing complex problems facing organizations. Considering that it came about after the end of the two world wars, the western nations were in the recovery process and needed a public administration, which was relevant to their public interest. It put more emphasis on normative approach, through its set goals and anti goals of the new public administration. According to Pardeep and Vayunandan, the four goals were values, relevance, equity, and change, while the three anti goals were anti positivist, anti technical and anti bureaucratic, and anti hierarchical (2010). For the goals, the change aspect stressed that administrative systems should incorporate organizational adaptability and operational flexibility, to bring about change in public administration. Similarly, since public administration was viewed as change oriented, it had to respond to the various social, economical, and even political changes. The older public administration model was perceived to intensively deal with the political (government) environment, hence neglecting the contemporary problems and issues that affect specific domains and people. Due to these, the changes intended had to be relevant to the various needs of the situations. The society also needs development, and that could only be achieved if the people inside and outside the organization become enhanced in life challenges, so that their sufferings can be reduced. Therefore, the public administration should be keen to address the grievances of the minorities, and facilitate social equity to provide fairness and justice to all as a guide to the human development. Lastly, NPA refuted classical scholars’ value neutral stand in public administration, stating that there should be explicit need to work for the society’s disadvantaged sections (Pardeep & Vayunandan, 2010). The argument was that the discipline was value oriented to foster commitment and openness in administrative activities. Through the anti goals, the anti positivist element rejected the value-free notion of being non-active in policy making, and deterministic view of humankind associated with earlier model of public administration , while the anti technical element criticized the former simplification of human capital to machineries (Pardeep & Vayunandan, 2010). The framework of NPA facilitated active consultation between the public and administrators in performance, stressed on the need for management and worker relations, moral and ethics within administrations, as well as development of flexible and decentralized hierarchies. New Public Management (NPM) Theory It is a concept that replaced the NPA and was designed to allow governments operate in a similar manner as businesses, such that various principles in business administration were introduced in the public sector. It is perceived as a new ruling paradigm of innovation in public administration, and advocates for series of shifts in handling the manner in which public sectors are managed and organized (Keraudren and Mierlo, n.d.). The theory’s idea is to guide organizations productivity by keeping check on the proposed goals and actual result. However, it called for restructuring of public administration to facilitate public servant innovation, adaptation of new technologies, participation of increasing employees and provision of public goods at a lower cost, let alone considering the increasing demand of public services. It builds upon NPA, but puts emphasis on decentralization and competition through professional management, output oriented actions and service level standards, and performance measurement (Fortin and Hassel, 2000). NPM was formed from the emergence of two main theories; Public choice from economists theory and Neo Taylorism form organizational theories. Public choice theory recommends use of alternative means for decision making in the government. Instead of relying on the function of a bureaucratic state, the social and economic process could be decided upon through market forces regulations; hence limiting the wasteful spending of the organizations (Ferlie et al, 1996). That could be achieved via proposed measures of availing alternatives to public service, enhancing competition, facilitating controls on bureaucrats, as well as privatization. Through the Neo Taylorism theory, the abilities and inconsistencies of management in administration are exposed, and human resources efforts are evaluated and motivated. However, it is limited to internal bureaucracy, and proposes for the use of proved successful managerial techniques and methods in private organizations and firms, to control the existing bureaucracy (Keraudren and Mierlo, n.d.). The theory places concern on reveling financial and economic information, to allow more control and transparency in the costs of production in the public sectors. It paves way for measuring actual results against the proposed plan, and allows motivational procedures to reward individuals’ achievements. Those going against the set protocol can also get to be punished for their discrepancies. Other managerial tools proposed to be used were cost cutting, innovation, responsiveness, functional autonomy, accountability, and markets orientation to achieve economical effectiveness and efficiency in public sector performance. NPM’s aim was to modify public administration through formulation of better procedures and techniques that can work effectively in the varying environment. It shares most concepts with NPA, but spans across a wide scope of application. Post Modern Public Administration The theory places emphasis on public administration being more responsive to the society, and able to allow more dialogue and debate, so that the public get to air their views, and the public policy would in return act towards addressing the needs of the society. According to Mcnabb, who agrees with Oakley, postmodernism evolved from the broad cultural change in the western world after World War II, the period marked with rapid spread of technology and popular culture (2008). Postmodernist theorists perceive public administration to have relied on positivism as an approach to acquire knowledge, which generally narrowed the range of thinking in a field. Hence, due to the changing cultures or time in different environments, formulation of a similar sort of persistent law would be impossible, due to the differences in human behavior. Postmodernism is complex and diverse, and hopes that the society’s organizations can get to distinguish reality and world views. It holds that most of the explanations associated to a particular field, for example science in the past, could only address the world from that largely unique position, simply because they were related to a particular time and place (Denhardt & Denhardt.R, 2007). Actually, cumulative processes were used to build a uniform theory from previously developed ones to achieve a homogeneous objective; an example is the use of scientific knowledge to improve human condition. The theory uses the Haberman discourse theory as a narrative device to counter the progressive myth, and starts by viewing organizational inquiry presentations as forms of discourse, before using discourse analysis based on interactive networks to challenge or reveal modernist assumptions of organizations, and reverse the potential power in the state of language in an organizational context (Denhardt R., &Denhardt J., 2009). The post modern public administration comes with conditions, which influence the consequences in application. The participation of citizens in public affairs is viewed as an authentic discourse that needs active involvement, attention, and contribution. In the theory’s context, characteristics of preference of diversity, openness, opposition to establishment of orders, and Meta narratives are noticeable. Summary of Public and Private Sectors In their similarities, both sectors can apply Henry Fayol’s administrative science, which does not distinguish public sectors from private sectors. From the theory, functions of management like planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, controlling, delegating, and budgeting are present in both public and private sectors of administration. Similarly, certain principles and skills are common to all the sectors and should be observed to achieve effectiveness. The two sectors seem to be led by the objective of making profit, and have developed to be subjects of legal numerous constraints. The accounting managers in both sector administrations have a common interest in managing their affairs and running programs, designed to achieve the intended objective through efficient spending of their resources (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013). In running the organizations and dealing with administrations, both sectors have adopted each other’s principles; public administration has adopted business administration principles to resemble the private organizations structure and operate like an enterprise, while private organizations enumerated public sectors in the way to handle and treat employees. The difference between the public and private sector begins with varying managerial environments; according to Milakovich and Gordon, in private sectors, the delivered output has to reflect individuals’ needs or wants for the sector to get payment, while the in public sector, the provision of services is towards a collective basis, whose payments occur through tax revenues (2013). From the same aspect, private organizations enjoy the freedom of selecting their markets and establishing their goals, whereas public managers and organizations are entitled to implement the goals set by a higher authority, for example the legislature. The public sector seems to have embraced equity of treatment to increase uniformity and consistencies in handling the public. To them, a customer is a citizen and all hold the same values. In contrast, the private sectors can choose on preference basis, which could lead to different treatments of customers. The major difference is in the provision of public services; while the public sector ventures into essential public services (like security, health, and law) which cannot be ignored, certain public services offered by private sectors are often non-essential, and work to steer profits or fame for private organizations from the society(Naidu, 1996). Another difference is that public administration is diverse and complex than private ones, considering the span of activities it covers and its actual size; most of its works is also open and subject to public scrutiny such as in financial matters. Public administration can also get to be monopolistic for the sake of the national interest, and no wonder it is perceived as politically oriented, unlike the private administration. Reference List  Basu, R. (2004). Public Administration: Concepts and Theories. New Delhi: Sterling publishers Pvt. Ltd. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. New York: M.E Sharpe. Inc Denhardt, R. B. (2011). Theories of Public Organization. 6th ed. Boston: Wardsworth|Cengage learning. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2009). Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wardsworth| Cengage Learning. Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fortin, Y., & Hassel, H. V., eds. (2000). Contracting in the New Public Management: From Economics to Law & Citizenship. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Hughes, O. E. (2003). Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. http://downloads.pavroz.ru/files/publicmandadm.pdf Keraudren, P., & Mierlo, H. V. (n.d.). Theories of public management Reform and their Practical implication. Retrieved from http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=11875 Manithaneyam, S. (n.d.).Theories of Administration. Retrieved from http://www.jeywin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Optional-Public-Administration-3-Theories-of-Administration.pdf Mcnabb, D. E. (2008). Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. New York: M.E Sharpe, Inc. Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Public Administration in America. 11th ed. Boston: Wardsworth|Cengage learning. Naidu, S. P. (1996). Public Administration: Concepts and Theories. New Delhi: New age international. Pardeep, S., & Vayunandan, E. (2010). Administrative Theory. New Delhi: PHI learning pvt.ltd.  Simon, H. A., Smithburg, D. W., & Thompson, V. A. (1991). Public Administration. New Brunswick: Transaction publishers. Read More