Paradigms or Models of Public Administration

16,110 views
15,827 views

Published on

FDM 201 PSU, Urdaneta City. Summer 2013

Published in: Education, Technology

Paradigms or Models of Public Administration

  1. 1. Paradigms or Models ofPublic Administration
  2. 2. The word Administration has been derived from theLatin words ‘ad’ and ‘ministiare’ which means toserve. In simple language it means the‘management of affairs’ or ‘looking after thepeople’. In general sense, administration can bedefined as the activities of groups co-operating toaccomplish common goals. It is a process ofmanagement which is practiced by all kinds oforganizations from the household to the mostcomplex system of the government.According to L. D. White, Administration was a‘process common to all group effort, public orprivate, civil or military, large scale or small scale’.
  3. 3. The growth of public administration hasmany facets. As a discipline, the term PublicAdministration has emerged in the late19th century and beginning of 20th century.American President Woodrow Wilson alsoknown as the father of Public Administration(PA) contributed very much to the subject ofPA. As a discipline, PA has passed throughseveral phases of development.
  4. 4. Paradigm 1:Politics/AdministrationDichotomy, 1900-1926Paradigm 2: The Principles ofAdministration, 1926-1937Paradigm 3: PublicAdministration as a PoliticalScience, 1950-1970Paradigm 4: PublicAdministration asManagement, 1956 -1970Paradigm 5: PublicAdministration as PublicAdministration, 1970Paradigm 6: From Governmentto Governance, 1990Period of OrthodoxyScientific managementBureaucracyPOSDECORBThe Most Serious ChallengeAdministrative BehaviorPublic ManagementNew Public AdministrationReinventing GovernmentNew Public ManagementNew Public ServicePost ModernismThe Future Digital (e)GovernanceEvolution of ParadigmSource www.ginandjar.comPA as aDevelopingDiscipline
  5. 5. Politics/Administration Dichotomy1900-1926
  6. 6. Paradigm 1: Politics/Administration Dichotomy,1900-1926• (Traditional/Classical) tradition (Woodrow Wilson,Frank Goodnow), provided the rationale for PA tobe an academic discipline and professionalspecialty• Wilson was credited for positing the existence ofmajor distinction between Politics/Administrationor what became known as P/A dichotomy• The role of politics has something to do withpolicies or the expressions of the will of statewhile administration, with execution
  7. 7. Paradigm 1: Politics/Administration Dichotomy,1900-1926• The Locus of PA should be the center ofgovernment’s bureaucracy.• Wilson, in his pioneering book in 1926,“Introduction to PA” made critical assumptionsthat formed the basis on the study of PA:a. Administration is unitary process that canbe studied uniformly, at the federal, stateand local levels;b. The basis for study is management, not law;
  8. 8. c. Administration is still an art but the ideal oftransformance to a science is both feasible andworthwhile;d. Administration has become the heart of theproblem of modern government.Paradigm 1: Politics/Administration Dichotomy,1900-1926
  9. 9. : The Principles of Administration1926-1937
  10. 10. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• PA as an activity booming in 1920• A high demand for public administrationistsfor their managerial knowledge courted byindustry and government alike.• Focus of PA was on managerial expertise inthe appearance of administrative reforms• Principles was important to Gulick andUrwick but these principles were notapplied, focus were favored over locus.
  11. 11. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• The development of PA between world warswas the period of high noon of orthodoxy.• The tenets of orthodoxy held that:a. True democracy and true efficiency aresynonymous or at least reconcilable;b. The work of government could be neatlydivided into decision making andexecution; andc. PA is a science with discoverableprinciples
  12. 12. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• Taylor considered the father of scientificmanagement and pioneered the time andmotion studies. He wrote in 1911 theprinciples of scientific management.• Classical organization theory evolved fromthis notion.• Bureaucracy, literary means rule byofficials, the administrative machinery ofthe state, more broadly, a rationale andrule governed mode of organization
  13. 13. Office of the SecretaryDirectorate/BureauDivisionSectionwww.ginandrjar.com
  14. 14. • Characteristics of bureaucracy: impersonal;formalistics, rule bound, highly disciplinedParadigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937ManagerSupervisorASupervisorBWorker Worker Worker Worker Worker Worker Worker Workerwww.ginandrjar.com
  15. 15. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• Internal issues: management practices andproblems, organizational behavior, andstructures, budgeting and personnel thruprofessionalism, professional standard andcodes, and checks and balance werenecessary because of the increasingcomplexities of modern policies (Friedrich,1901-1984; Finer, 1898-1969) and balances
  16. 16. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• External – the issue of ADMINISTRATIVERESPONSIBILITY - to be responsive to interestgroups, executive and legal forces andconstituencies• Administrative responsibility can bemaintained externally by legislative orpopular control and another option wasexternal checks and balances
  17. 17. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• The job of the bureaucrat is to define the publicinterest and the role of interest group in publicpolicy formulation.• Perhaps the most significant landmark was fromSimon (1940). He urged the use of logicalpositivism in dealing with policy making anddecision making is in the true heart ofadministration. He introduced the concept ofbounded rationality in decision making and thatpeople are rationale decision makers within limits(use of scientific method – the single best choicethat is satisficing).
  18. 18. Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937• For Simon, there are two kind of publicadministrationist (1) scholars concerned withdeveloping pure science of administration basedon grounding social psychology and (2) a largergroup concerned with prescribing public policy.• Robert A. Dahl analyzed the art of discipline of PAand he noted that (1) recognized the complexitiesof human behavior; (2) deals with the problemsand normative values in administrative situations;and (3) takes into account the relationshipbetween PA and its social setting
  19. 19. • Dahl also sought to define PA in terms of CULTUREgiving strong impetus to comparative administration• Culturalism and internalizationParadigm 2: The Principles of Administration, 1926-1937
  20. 20. Public Administration as a PoliticalScience, 1950-1970
  21. 21. • In 1947, Simon demonstrated that for every principleadvocated in literature, there was a counter-principles, thus rendering the very idea of principlesmoot.• Another important school of thought which studiesthe role and problems of administration indeveloping countries calls its field comparativepublic administration’. The battle over meanings andlabels is symptomatic of substantive differences inapproach and outlook.Paradigm 3: Public Administration as a Political Science,1950-1970
  22. 22. • To some degree, all of the differentapproaches share a comparative point of view.Almost every writer who discusses adeveloping bureaucracy is at least implicitlyholding up against it the Weberian image ofthe efficient, rational, functionally specialized,impersonal, non-political bureaucratichierarchy, an image associated chiefly with thewestern industrialized nationsParadigm 3: Public Administration as a Political Science,1950-1970
  23. 23. • By mid 20th century, the two defining pillars ofPA : politics/administration dichotomy andprinciples of administration was toppled andabandoned by creative intellects in the field.The abandonment left PA bereft of a distinctepistemological and intellectual identity.• The logical conceptual connection between PAand political science – public policy makingprocessParadigm 3: Public Administration as a Political Science,1950-1970
  24. 24. Paradigm 3: Public Administration as a Political Science,1950-1970• Political scientist have begun to resist thegrowing independence of PA rather thanadvocating a public service and an executivepreparatory program, the began calling for“intellectualized understanding” of the executivebranch rather than “knowledgeable action” onthe part of public administrators.• The political science discipline was in constantthroes of being shaken conceptually by thebehavioral revolution that has occurred in othersocial sciences.
  25. 25. • As a result of these concerns, PA remaineda subset of political science departments, arenewed definition of locus – thegovernment bureaucracy but also the lossof focus.• Organization theory, management sciencehas scanty support in political science• PA as an identifiable field of study beguna long downhill spiral movement.Paradigm 3: Public Administration as a Political Science,1950-1970
  26. 26. Public Administration asManagement,1956 -1970
  27. 27. • Due to the undisguised contempt of political sciencedepartment, some public administrationists began searchingfor alternatives.• The management option sometimes called administrativescience or generic management• A number of developments stemming from business schoolfostered the alternative paradigm of administrative science.• If the school of business administration would absorb the fieldof PA or whether profit conscious could adequately appreciatethe vital value of public interest as an administrative was aquestion of genuine importance to public administrationistsand the probable answers were less comforting.Paradigm 4: Public Administration as Management,1956 -1970
  28. 28. • The dividing line between private and publicadministration had been a painful dilemma for anumber of years.• All have conspired to make PA an elusive entityin terms of determining its proper paradigm.• The principal dilemma in defining the public inpublic administration appears to have been onein dimension, hence, we are witnessing the riseof public interest and public affairsParadigm 4: Public Administration as Management,1956 -1970
  29. 29. • As a paradigm, administrative science can notcomprehend the supra value of public interest. Withouta sense of public interest, administrative science can beused for any purpose no matter how antithetical todemocratic values that purpose maybe.• The concept of determining and implementing the publicinterest constitutes a defining pillar of PA and a locus ofthe field.• With little attention from the context of administrativescience, it would seem, therefore, that PA should andmust find a new paradigm that encourages both focusand locus in the field.Paradigm 4: Public Administration as Management,1956 -1970
  30. 30. • Scientific management and principles gave way toadministrative management science• Foremost among these voices was that of Hudson(1955) and gave weight to the problems of publicmanagement of utilizing human resources andmaterials for goal attainment.• Other works gave solid theoretical reasons forchoosing management with emphasis onorganizational theory as the paradigm of PA• In the early 1960s, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTbegan its rapid rise as the focus and specialty ofmanagementParadigm 4: Public Administration as Management,1956 -1970
  31. 31. • In 1967, Golembiewski suggested decision makingand problem solving responsibilities be located asclose as possible to information sources and tomake competition contributes to meeting workgoals as opposed to win-lose competition.• Managers would work in increasing self control andself direction for people within organization and tocreate a condition for which conflict is surfaced andmanaged appropriately and positively and toincrease awareness of group process and itsconsequences for performanceParadigm 4: Public Administration as Management,1956 -1970
  32. 32. • Golembiewski urged and open problem solvingclimate so that members can confrontproblems rather than fight or flee from them,encourage trust among individuals and groupsand supplement or replace authority or role orstatus with authority of knowledge andcompetence.• Democratic values could be considered,normative concerns could be broached,intellectual rigors and scientific methodologiescould be employed.Paradigm 4: Public Administration as Management,1956 -1970
  33. 33. Public Administration as PublicAdministration, 1970
  34. 34. • PA scholars reconsidered their linkages withpolitical science.• The emergence of TECHNOBUREUACRATICdimensions (science, technology and public policy,relationship between knowledge and power,bureaucracy and democracy, technology andmanagement).• The return of PA as an independent field of studyhas been strengthened by the development of newthinking in the field, giving new meaning, directionand purpose of PA applicationParadigm 5: Public Administration as PublicAdministration, 1970
  35. 35. • PA application, such as: New PublicAdministration (NPA ), reinventinggovernment, New Public Management (NPM)and New Public Service (NPS)Paradigm 5: Public Administration asPublic Administration, 1970
  36. 36.  Nicholas Henry (1995) uses the notion of locusand focus in reviewing the intellectualdevelopment of public administration He observed that PA has developed as anacademic field through a succession of fiveoverlapping paradigmsHenry’s Evolution of Paradigms
  37. 37. From Government toGovernance, 1990
  38. 38. • Etymologically, can be traced back to theGreek verb “kubernan” (to pilot or steer) andwas used by Plato to design a system or rule.• World bank (2000) defines Governance is theinstitutional capacity of public organizations toprovide the public and other goods demandedby a country’s citizens or their representativesin an effective, impartial, and accountablemanner subject to resource constraintsParadigm 6: From Government to Governance, 1990
  39. 39. • Why GOVERNANCE and not merelyGOVERNMENT? GOVERNANCE is broader andmore fundamental concept than that ofgovernment alone• The problem of modern governance is notmuch on the insufficiency of instrumentsrelative to the changing objectives but ratherthe degree of incompatibility betweenobjectivesParadigm 6: From Government to Governance, 1990
  40. 40. The Future Digital (e) Governance
  41. 41. • The future is digital: walking the walk ondigital government.• A vibrant government digital service.• Government discussing their perspectives onthe path ahead.• Digital government, building a 21st centuryPlatform to better the people serve.The Future Digital (e) Governance
  42. 42. Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016The Future Digital (e) Governance
  43. 43. • A significant activity this June is the launch of thePhilippine Digital Strategy on the theme“Transformation 2.0: A Digitally Empowered Nation.”• The Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016 aims tocontribute to the Aquino administration’s “SocialContract with the Filipino People”, mainly byleveraging the use of ICT for national development.• The PDS identifies four strategic thrusts, namely:1) transparent government and efficient servicesdelivery, 2) Internet opportunities for all, 3) investingin people: digital literacy for all, and 4) ICT industryand business innovation for national development.The Future Digital (e) Governance
  44. 44. • The strategy presents a renewed vision for ICTand its importance in transforming Philippinesociety into a competitive force in the globaldigital economy by the year 2016.• The PDS is also aligned with the principles andthrusts of the ASEAN Information andCommunications Technology Master plan(AIM) 2015, which was adopted in January2011. AIM 2015 was developed to serve as aguiding document to advance ASEAN regionalICT cooperation.The Future Digital (e) Governance
  45. 45. Nicolas Henry. Paradigms of PublicAdministration. University of Georgia (1975)Prof Dr. lr. Ginandjar Kartasasmita. PublicAdministration as a Developing Discipline.Graduate School of Asia and Pacific Studies,University of Waseda, Tokyo, Japan, 2008Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016Reference

×