Public Administration as an academic subject has continuously developed through several interconnected stages or Paradigms. The major stages of its development are—Politics–Administration Dichotomy, Principles of Administration, Era of Challenge, Crisis of Identity and Public Policy Perspective.
Nicholas Henry has explained the intellectual development of Public Administration through five Paradigms. These are—
Politics–Administration Dichotomy (1887–1926),
Principles of Administration (1927–1937),
Public Administration as Political Science (1950–1970),
Public Administration as Administrative Science
or Management (1956–1970)
and Public Administration as Public Administration (1970–onwards).
On the other hand, Robert T. Golembiewski has explained its historical development through four stages—Analytical Politics/Administration,
Concrete Politics/Administration,
A Science of Management
and Public-Policy Approach.
According to him, each stage can be understood on the basis of its ‘locus’ and ‘focus’. ‘Locus’ refers to the field or place of study of a subject, while ‘Focus’ refers to the analytical subject given importance by the specialists.
Stage I — Politics–Administration Dichotomy (1887–1926)
This stage marks the beginning of the development of Public Administration as an independent academic discipline. The central idea of this period was to separate politics and administration, which is known as Politics–Administration Dichotomy.
This stage began with the publication of Woodrow Wilson’s article The Study of Administration in 1887. This article laid the foundation for a separate, independent and systematic study of Public Administration. That is why Woodrow Wilson is called the ‘Father of Public Administration’.
According to Wilson, the main task of politics is to formulate policies, whereas the task of administration is to implement those policies. That is, politics is concerned with policy-making and administration is concerned with policy implementation. He expressed the view that administration is located outside the proper sphere of politics and administrative questions are not political questions. Politics may determine the work or objectives for administration, but administrative offices should not be influenced by political interference.
Wilson described Public Administration as a field similar to business. According to him, administration should work efficiently, staying away from the turmoil and conflicts of politics. He also regarded administration as a science and stated that simplifying the methods of government management, making government activities more business-like and efficient, strengthening and refining organisation, and faithfully performing duties are the main objectives of administrative science.
Frank J. Goodnow further developed Wilson’s idea in his book Politics and Administration, published in 1900. Goodnow clearly distinguished between two separate functions of government—Politics and Administration. According to him, Politics is concerned with the expression of the will or policy of the state, whereas Administration is concerned with putting those policies into operation. Like Wilson, Goodnow was also in favour of developing Public Administration as an independent and separate academic discipline. That is why he is also called the ‘Father of American Public Administration’.
At the beginning of the 20th century, interest in the public service movement or government reform movement increased in American universities. As a result, Public Administration gained importance among scholars. A report of the American Political Science Association in 1914 stated that an important objective of Political Science was to prepare specialised persons for government positions.
In 1926, L.D. White’s Introduction to the Study of Public Administration was published. It is regarded as the first textbook published on Public Administration. Its publication gave Public Administration academic recognition and formal teaching of the subject began in American universities.
Stage II — Principles of Administration (1927–1937)
During this stage, scholars believed that there were certain general and universal principles of administration through which administrative efficiency and economy could be increased. According to them, the principles of administration had universal applicability irrespective of the nature of work or circumstances. Therefore, efforts were made to establish Public Administration as a science.
This stage began with the publication of W.F. Willoughby’s Principles of Public Administration in 1927. According to Willoughby, there are certain fundamental principles in administration that can be generally applied like the principles of other sciences.
Important works of this stage include Henri Fayol’s Industrial and General Management (1916), M.P. Follet’s Creative Experience (1924), Mooney and Reiley’s Onward Industry (1931), Gulick and Urwick’s Papers on the Science of Administration (1937) and Mooney and Reiley’s Principles of Organisation (1939).
Gulick and Urwick’s Papers on the Science of Administration is particularly important in this stage. According to them, certain administrative principles can be derived from the study of organised human activities. These principles can be studied to some extent independently of the objectives of the institution, personnel, constitutional or political environment, etc.
During this stage, the ‘public’ aspect of Public Administration, that is, its connection with the people, was largely ignored and greater emphasis was placed on efficiency. According to Mohit Bhattacharya, this period can be called the stage of ‘orthodoxy’ in administration because efforts were made during this period to define the boundaries of the new science of ‘management’. During this period, Public Administration reached a high stage in its academic development.
Stage III — Era of Challenge (1938–1947)
The main feature of this stage was the rise of the Human Relations–Behavioural Approach in the study of Public Administration. During this period, the earlier ideas were widely challenged.
The two major pillars of Public Administration—Politics–Administration Dichotomy and Principles of Administration—both faced criticism. Scholars argued that administration could not be completely separated from politics because administrative activities also have a political nature and political role. Administration is not only concerned with implementing political decisions; it also has an important role in policy formulation. As a result, the concept of Politics–Administration Dichotomy was rejected.
Similarly, the scientific validity and universal relevance of the so-called ‘principles’ of administration were questioned. These principles were sometimes described as ‘proverbs’ and ‘naturalistic fallacies’.
Along with this, the Principles Approach to organisational analysis was also criticised as mechanistic because this approach placed excessive emphasis on the formal structure of organisations and ignored the social and psychological aspects of organisational behaviour. The Hawthorne Studies conducted under the leadership of Elton Mayo during 1924–1932 demonstrated the importance of informal organisation in determining organisational efficiency. As a result, Human Relations Theory developed in the study of organisations.
Some important works that challenged classical Public Administration during this period were C.I. Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive (1938), F. Morstein Marx edited Elements of Public Administration (1946), Herbert A. Simon’s The Proverbs of Administration (1946), Herbert A. Simon’s Administrative Behaviour (1947), Robert Dahl’s The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems (1947) and Dwight Waldo’s The Administrative State (1948).
Herbert A. Simon and Behavioural Approach
Herbert A. Simon emerged as the most important critic of the traditional principles of administration. He called these principles ‘proverbs’ and advocated the Behavioural Approach to make Public Administration more scientific.
Simon gave a central place to decision-making in the study of administration. According to him, understanding how people make decisions is very important in the study of administration. He also rejected the concept of Politics–Administration Dichotomy and recommended the adoption of an empirical approach in the study of Public Administration. This idea brought Public Administration closer to logical positivism, psychology and social psychology and attempted to introduce greater scientificity into the study of the subject.
Robert Dahl’s Criticism
Robert Dahl deeply criticised the idea of developing universal principles in Public Administration. According to him, there were three major problems in developing Public Administration as a science.
First, normative considerations cannot be completely removed from the problems of Public Administration. Therefore, the study of Public Administration must be based on certain clear goals and objectives.
Second, the need to study certain specific aspects of human behaviour limits the possibility of developing a science of Public Administration. Dahl criticised the tendency to explain organisations only in formal and technical terms and emphasised considering human beings as an important part of organisations.
Third, the so-called principles of administration were based on examples from a limited number of national and historical settings. Therefore, accepting them as universal principles was scientifically weak.
According to Dahl, the science of Public Administration would be possible only when normative values are clearly defined, human nature in the field of administration is better understood, and through comparative study of different countries, such principles or generalisations are identified that may rise above national boundaries and particular historical circumstances.
Dahl also gave special importance to the influence of the environment on administrative behaviour. According to him, Public Administration cannot be completely free from the influence of the national psychology, social, political and cultural environment of a country. Therefore, he emphasised the need for cross-cultural studies and comparative studies. It is difficult to develop a universal science of Public Administration without considering the influence of various historical, sociological, economic and other environmental factors.
Stage IV — Crisis of Identity (1948–1970)
After the rejection of both Politics–Administration Dichotomy and Principles of Administration, Public Administration faced a Crisis of Identity. During this stage, scholars mainly moved in two different directions.
One group attempted to reconnect Public Administration with Political Science. However, political scientists did not show much enthusiasm for this effort. In his 1950 article Trends in the Theory of Public Administration, John Gaus expressed the view that the theory of Public Administration could essentially be considered a part of the theory of politics. Roscoe Martin, in an article published in 1952, mentioned the continued dominance of Political Science over Public Administration.
Another group moved towards Administrative Science or Management. According to them, there are certain general processes and principles of administration irrespective of the environment in which administration operates. This approach influenced the establishment of the Journal of Administrative Science Quarterly in 1956 and the publication of various management-oriented books. March and Simon’s Organizations (1958), Cyert and March’s A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (1963), March and Simon’s Handbook of Organizations (1965) and J.D. Thompson’s Organizations in Action (1967) are important works in this direction.
However, while moving towards either politics or Administrative Science, Public Administration had to merge with larger fields and lost a part of its independent identity. That is why this stage is called the ‘stage of crisis of identity’ in the development of Public Administration.
During this period, the rise of the Human Relations Approach, development of Comparative Public Administration, F.W. Riggs’ Ecological Approach, the concept of Development Administration of Edward Weidner and F.W. Riggs, F.W. Riggs’ concept of Administrative Development, the rise of New Public Administration, Vincent Ostrom’s Public Choice Approach and the emergence of the Critical Perspective of Public Administration were important developments.
Stage V — Public Policy Perspective (1971–Present)
The main subject of this final stage of the development of Public Administration is Public Policy Analysis. During this period, specialists in Public Administration began to show greater interest in fields related to policy science, political economy, policy-making and policy analysis.
During this stage, the traditional concept of Politics–Administration Dichotomy was abandoned and the Public Policy Approach gained greater importance in administrative analysis. According to Dwight Waldo, the concept of complete separation between politics and administration had become an ‘outworn credo’, that is, an old and obsolete belief.
According to Robert T. Golembiewski, the development of Public Administration during this stage depends on two major issues—one is the explanation of the interrelationship between politics and administration at different levels, and the other is the programmatic character of all administration. As a result of these two issues, the attention of Public Administration expanded beyond administrative activities to political and policy-making processes as well as specific public programmes.
The adoption of the Public Policy Approach made Public Administration more interdisciplinary, increased its relevance to society and further expanded the scope of its study.
Study of Public Administration in India
The rise and development of the teaching and research of Public Administration in India also witnessed some important developments.
In the 1930s, Lucknow University became the first university in India to include a full-compulsory paper on Public Administration in the M.A. course in Political Science.
After that, in 1937, Madras University became the first university in India to start a Diploma Course in Public Administration. This established an important foundation for the formal academic study and teaching of Public Administration in India.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comment