The document discusses the emergence of New Public Administration (NPA) in the late 1960s from the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. The NPA rejected classical theories of public administration and advocated for social equity in addition to efficiency and effectiveness. It also questioned the relevance of traditional public administration and argued for more focus on social purposes and values rather than just economic factors. The NPA called for more client-oriented, participatory, and decentralized approaches with less bureaucracy. While social equity has gained more acceptance since NPA, it still struggles to be viewed equally alongside other core values of public administration like economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.

1. New Public
Administration
(late 1960s to 1970s)

2. New Public Administration
(late 1960s to 1970s)
The term “New Public Administration” or
New PA may have emerged from the
Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in
Syracuse University. The conference was
the brainchild and inspiration of Dwight
Waldo who brought together young public
administrators and scholars to discuss
important issues and varying perspectives
on public administration. The conference
created a hullabaloo.

3. One of its controversies is that it had rejected the
classical theories of public administration and
instead offered new principles. For instance,
Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public
Administration,” adds social equity to the classic
definition of public administration.
Conventional or classic public administration sought
to only answer inquiries on efficiency and
effectiveness like: how can the government offer
better services with available resources
(efficiency) or how can we maintain our level of
services while spending less money (economy)? In
introducing the principles of New PA, he adds the
question: “Does this service enhance social
equity?” (Frederickson 1971)

4. The Minnowbrook conferees also questioned
the relevance of traditional public administration to
existing deprivation with an era of fast-paced
technological advancement in the backdrop.
Frederickson argued that, disparities existed because
public administration focused less on social purposes
or values of government policies and programs and
more on the economy and efficiency of execution.
The value-free and neutral stance of traditional
PA has alienated the less privileged and deprived
groups in the society. New PA’s proponents, likewise,
advocated that public administrators should not be
neutral; they should be committed to both good
management and social equity as values to be
achieved.

5. Social Equity
Social Equity—while named the fourth pillar of
public administration by the National Academy
of Public Administration in 2005—still
struggles to find equal footing with its
partners, economy, efficiency and
effectiveness. As Wooldridge and Gooden
(2009) have argued, it is the rare public
administrator who has the courage to make
social equity the primary goal of policy. The
question for this work is, “Can we achieve
equity for social equity among the pillars of
public administration?”
Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

6. Conventional or
classic values of
public
administration
Efficiency,
effectiveness, and
economy
New public
administration
efficiency,
effectiveness,
and
social equity

7. New PA is “change”
New PA then called for client-oriented
administration, non-bureaucratic
structures, participatory decision-
making, decentralized administration
and advocate-administrators.
(Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro
1989) With the above contentions, it
can be said that the theme of New PA
is “change” and the challenge is for
the public administrators is their
capacity to accept change.

8. Is the New PA relevant?
Pilar (1993) in his article “Relevance of
New PA in Philippine Public
Administration. He argued that New PA
is relevant while there is no indigenous
model of public administration, the
relevance of New PA maybe regarded in
terms of their compatibility with the
context or the environment, as well as
the convergence between the content
and intent of new PA with the goals,
purposes, and aspirations of the
country.” (Pilar 1993: 145)

9. The principle of New PA is compatible
with the environment of the Philippine
PA, although it was conceived during
the time that the US was in chaotic and
unpredictable environment amidst
prosperity. Such situation is different in
the Philippines considering that not
only it grappled with advancement but
it struggled to pull itself out of poverty
which is a major concern of the
government up to this date.

10. New PA created the need to stimulate change:
meeting the needs of the society through
the government’s development programs
and projects, and addressing social equity
and justice. It must be emphasized though,
that the core questions raised by New PA are
also embedded in our second order
question, “for whom is PA?” It is indeed
critical to define the ultimate targets and
partners of public administration structures,
institutions and processes. In other words,
who is the “public” in public administration?
Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

11. It is argued here that social equity can be simplified
to maintaining or creating equality of opportunity
in the provision of public services and that it can
take three different forms in public
administration:
1. Simple fairness and equal treatment
2. Distribution of resources to reduce inequalities in
universal programs and services
3. Redistribution of resources to level the playing
field or increase equality of opportunity through
targeted programs
Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

12. Social equity among the values of public administration
has gained ground in acceptance since the first
Minnowbrook conference. But over 40 years later, it still
struggles to gain traction as an equal among its partners
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Despite other
symposia in the Journal of Public Affairs Education, the
work of the Standing Panel on Social Equity in NAPA
and its annual Social Equity Leadership Conference, and
the establishment of a Democracy and Social Justice
Section in the American Society for Public
Administration, the field of public administration has
not fully accepted the role of social equity in public
administration. In part, this is due to the lack of clear
definitions and measures for social equity.
Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

13. Alex Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez Is there
a Philippine Public Administration or Better
Still, for whom is Public Administration? UP
NCPAG June, 2008
Kristen Norman-Major (2006) Balancing the Four
Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity in
Public Administration?
Hamline University. JPAE 17(2), 233–252
Reference: