Chilcote pronounced as chilcoat , chilcott , chilcutt ; Sauvy as Saw-vee or So-vee
Dwivedi pronounced as d w ih v EH d ee
Ilchman pronounced ILTSCH-man; Laudau as Landor
Khator pronounced as ka-TOOR
ˈPlural form of focus .foci as foʊ.saɪ; and Plural form of locus .loci as loʊsaɪ
Modern Public Administration
I would like to include the Philippines under the Asia-Pacific Region. The Philippines real estate sector isbooming and is commendable to be recognized as one of the most attractive places to invest NOW. Fueled byeconomic growth, the real estate sector is experiencing its most prosperous state. Quoting from an article byGlobal property guide dated 24th of August 2012, "This (partly) English-speaking country finds itself ideallypositioned to take advantage of the global outsourcing boom. Employment is surging, skyscrapers are goingup, unemployment is falling, the malls and restaurants are full, and there’s the happy sound of money ringingin shopkeepers’ tills." The year 2012 will spark the beginning of new architectural developments, rising sky-srapers, and shift in population density to newly developed super cities like Global City, Taguig. joezanzoonModernPublic Administration
Modern Public AdministrationThe indicative period of modern publicadministration in the 50s. The sub phasesinclude:(a) Development Administration;(b) New Public Administration;(c) New Public Management andReinventing Government; and(d)PA as governance.
The discipline of public administration has beencharacterized as one with a continuing“identity crisis.” To a certain extent, it wasthat “identity crisis” that served as themethat led to the emergence of the New PublicAdministration movement in the 70s. Rutgers(1998) argued in “Paradigm lost: Crisis asIdentify of the Study of PublicAdministration,” that public administrationlacked an “epistemological identity.”“identity crisis.”
Public Administration has been labeled ashaving an identity crisis because of the mix ofcompeting theories and paradigm (Wise,1990, 150; Rutgers, 1998; Raadschelders,1999). The identity crisis stems from thechanging and competing theories on publicadministration and the lack of a unifyingepistemology (Raadschelders, 1999, 284).“identity crisis.”
Public administration is a multidiscipline fieldtouching on “political science, philosophy,economics, organization theory, sociology andsocial psychology” (Fox & Miller, 1995, 4). Themulti and interdisciplinary nature of publicadministration has led to the crisis of identity(Raadschelders, 1999, 285). Mark Rutgers(1998) contends that public administration’sidentity crisis is its identity“identity crisis.”
Loren Demerath on an Article first published online( 17 Dec 2002) epistemological Identity Theory (EIT)explains how individuals enhance their knowledge of selfand the world by creating and maintaining identities. Usingcognitive and affective processes previously ignoredby identity theorists, this theory reconceptualizescommitment to an identity as the degree to which thatidentity organizes and clarifies ones experience of theworld and him/herself. The theory is derived from twopreviously developed, theories by Demerath (1993) basedon epistemological principles.Source: Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological AssociationVol. 26 Issue 5, 2006Epistemological Identity Theory (EIT)
First, Knowledge-Based Affect responses to gains andlosses in meaning, and identifies the determinants ofmeaningfulness as frequency, stability, and impact.Second, Epistemological Culture Theory extendsthose principles, arguing individuals actively increasemeaningfulness by creating culture as theycollaboratively articulate, typify, and orient theirexperiences to create shared meaningSource: Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological AssociationVol. 26 Issue 5, 2006Epistemological Identity Theory (EIT)
In the Philippines, Reyes (2003) revisited the so-called “identity crisis” of public administrationinitially raised by various scholars of thediscipline in his various writings. Hecontended that the crisis revolved around theimperative to define a public administrationrooted to the development aspirations of thePhilippines. The identity crisis, however,continues up to today in the Philippines.“identity crisis.”
Development Administration (DA)as a field of study emerged in 1950s and 1960swith the third world countries as the focal point.The term “third world” may be attributed tothe French demographer and economichistorian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of theCold War in 1952, used the term to distinguishdeveloping countries outside the two powerblocs; namely, the First World and the SecondWorld respectively. (Chilcote 1984)
Development Administration (DA• The term development administration can beused in a broad sense, to embrace the varietyof approaches and points of view that markthe study of public administration indeveloping countries
The immediate contribution of developmentadministration is its exposure of theadministrative obstacles to the planning andimplementation of developmentDevelopment Administration (DA
Nef and Dwivedi (1981) on the other hand,attributed the concept of DA to Goswami in1955 and later popularized by Riggs andWeidner. They coined the term “developmentadministration” to refer to developingcountries which are largely found in Asia, LatinAmerica, and Africa.
These developing countries endeavoredto make concerted efforts in order tobe recognized as “emerging nations”and to resurrect themselves afterWorld War II.
In the context of “emerging nation,” Landau(1970) described DA as the engineering ofsocial change. Likewise, according toIlchman (1970), these countries were“concerned with increasing the capacity ofthe state to produce goods and services tomeet and induce changing demands.”(Ilchman 1970: 136)DA as the “engineering of social change”
Gant (1979) on the other hand, defined DA asnot merely addressing state functions such aspublic service delivery and enforcement oflaws but the inducement and management ofchange to pursue development aspirations.These developing countries were in urgentneed to implement fundamental reforms intheir politico-administrative machinery.
Khator (1998) however, argued that DA was builtupon several critical assumptions that:(1) development needs are the most importantneeds of developing countries;(2) the development needs of developing anddeveloped countries are inherently different;(3) development can be administered;(4) developmental know-how are transferable;and(5) the political, social, and cultural context ofdevelopment can be easily altered.
Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his “Frontiers ofDevelopment,” identified two foci indevelopment administration: development ofadministration and the administration ofdevelopment. Most development administrationscholars focused more on the latter and itsubsequently became synonymous to theadministration of development in third worldcountries. (Khator 1998)
Given the situations above, DA maybeconsidered as “management of innovation”because it was aimed at helping countriesthat are undergoing reconstruction andsocial transformation.DA as “Management of Innovation”
In the Philippines, The term “DevelopmentAdministration” was used to suggest that it maybe an appropriate framework to examine theState’s experience as it tries to rebuild itsinstitutions within a democratic framework, as itstruggles to new economic, political and socialchallenges, and as it adapts to the trends anddemands of globalization.
Additionally, DA principles have beenamong the major themes that ran throughthe various lectures and writings of Raul DeGuzman, who together with OD Corpuz(1986) initially addressed the question: “Isthere a Philippine PA?” Since the idea wasto steer developing countries for economicdevelopment and social progress, the termDA became closely associated to foreignaid and western models of development.
These Western countries provide grants andaids to developing countries for nation-building, economic development, institutionalstrengthening, and people participation indevelopment.
As to administrative reform, which is one of the corevalues of DA, De Guzman (1986) described andanalyzed the structural and behavioralcharacteristics of the Philippine public bureaucracyand argued that the “implementation ofadministrative reform should have two majordimensions: reforming the structures of thebureaucracy and reforming the behavior of thosein the bureaucracy.” (De Guzman 1986 as cited inBrillantes 1994: 8)
Development administration has always been oneof the central features of the various long andmedium term Philippine Development Plans sincethe seventies. The paradigm for bureaucraticreform continues to evolve in various intellectualand practical debates but government continuesits work amidst all these. Until recently, allPhilippine development plans since the seventieshad a specific chapter devoted solely todevelopment administration
Alex Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez Is therea Philippine Public Administration or Better Still,for whom is Public Administration? UP NCPAGJune, 2008Loren Demerath. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association. Vol. 26 Issue 5,2006Reference