Who Are the Keepers of the Code? Articulating and Upholding Ethical Standards in the Field of Public Administration

Establishing a code of ethics has been a challenge in public administration. Ethics is central to the practice of administration, but the broad field of public administration has had difficulty articulating clear and meaningful standards of behavior and developing a means of upholding a code of ethics. Although a number of specialized professional associations in public service adopted codes, starting with the International City/County Management Association in 1924 and others after 1960, the full range of public administrators did not have an association to represent them until the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) was founded in 1939. Despite early calls for a code of ethics in ASPA, the first code was adopted in 1984, with revisions in 1994, but neither code had a process for enforcement. A new code approved in 2013 builds on the earlier codes and increases the prospects for ASPA to work with other professional associations to broaden awareness of the ethical responsibilities to society of all public administrators.     

The Future of the Study of Public Administration: Embedding Research Object and Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology

What should be done to advance the study of public administration? A strong argument is advanced by outgoing PAR managing editor Jos C. N. Raadschelders that the field benefits significantly from greater attention to ontology and epistemology. To be sure, empirical, evidence‐based research has its place, but its basis and the meaning of findings seldom are questioned. Why? Many public administration scholars seek “scientificness” through a disciplinary type of methodology. However, working within an inherently interdisciplinary field, public administration scholars cannot reduce the complex, wicked problems of society and government to mere empirical measurement. The author lays out five critical challenges confronting today’s public administration—both its study and research—requiring the field’s urgent attention in order to meet the comprehensive and rapidly expanding needs of specialists and generalists, practitioners and academicians, as well as the general public.     

An Administrative Manifesto for Survival in the Twenty-First Century

Professor Ali Farazmand has written a manifesto for administrative action in an effort to improve public governance and administration capacity not only for today but also for tomorrow, which is highly volatile and uncertain. Farazmand's earlier works, especially his essay "Globalization and Public Administration" (PAR, November/December 1999), are familiar to many students and scholars in public administration around the world.     

A Senator's Personal Reflections on Public Service

The Honorable Mary Landrieu, U.S. senator from Louisiana since 1997, addressed the 2013 annual meeting of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) at a luncheon honoring four Louisianans for their public service. They included General Russel L. Honoré, U.S. Army; Chancellor James L. Llorens, Southern University at Baton Rouge; Mayor Mitch Landrieu, City of New Orleans; and Professor Astrid Merget, Public Administration Institute at Louisiana State University Baton Rouge and honorary co‐chair of the 2013 ASPA Conference. In her remarks, Senator Landrieu reflected on her lineage in public service.     

Big Questions for a Significant Public Administration

During the 1999 "Building Bridges Tour" (see Stivers 2000), PAR readers encouraged the editors to focus more attention on the so-called "Big Questions/Big Issues" of the field of public administration. In response to this suggestion, we created a new forum for scholarly discourse simply called "Big Questions/Big Issues." This inaugural forum begins with a context setting essay by John Kirlin,a leading proponent of the Big Questions/Big Issues perspective. Kirlin' essay is immediately followed by Laurence E. Lynn Jr.'s thought provoking piece, "The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For." Lynn' essay is important for it takes to task those who carelessly attack "traditional public administration." We asked J. Patrick Dobel (University of Washington), David Rosenbloom (American University), Norma Riccucci (State University of New York at Albany), and James Svara (North Carolina State) to respond to Lynn' essay. We invite PAR readers to join the conversation using PAR' message board online at ASPA's Online Community (http://www.memberconnections.com/aspa/) or by writing directly to theauthors and/or editors.—LDT     

Caveat Emptor: What Do We Know about Public Administration Evidence and How Do We Know It?

This article provides an overview of a new feature in Public Administration Review called Evidence in Public Administration. This feature was created to provide a space in which scholars and practitioners of public administration can meet to engage in a dialogue about evidence in public decision making. In this feature, we will shine a light on the evidence needed to make effective decisions and examinations of the evidence that currently exists for contemporary public sector efforts. We explicitly want to create a resource for both practitioners and scholars to consult when trying to find evidence on a particular topic and to know the limitations and parameters of that evidence. This article lays out the purpose, scope, and rationale for the feature, as well as a call to engage in this endeavor.     

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT VIEWED FROM SYDNEY

This conference on "Public Administration in Co-operative Federalism", fittingly convened by the Royal Institute of Public Administration, is a most timely one. It is tangible evidence that co-operative federalism is not only possible but, in many areas, positively flourishes, and it provides an opportunity for those of us with state or federal responsibilities in public administration to state our problems fairly and frankly and seek ways of extending co-operation to secure future prosperity for Australia.     

Examining the Evolution of the Field of Public Administration through a Bibliometric Analysis of Public Administration Review

In 2015, Public Administration Review celebrated its 75th year of publication. For this milestone, the PAR Editorial Board selected the 75 most influential articles in the history of the journal and invited scholars to “revisit a selection of these articles” in order “to take stock of what these articles meant for the field.” Bibliometrics offers a complementary view of the history of a discipline and the evolution of its research and practice agendas through an analysis of its published literature. This article examines the changes over time in PAR from 1940 through 2013 in authorship: contributions, impact, gender composition, institutional and national affiliation, profession as scholar or practitioner, collaboration networks, and the status of the 75 influential articles. Through an extensive quantitative analysis of scholarly production, this article demonstrates PAR’s centrality to the discipline of public administration and its bridging role between public administration and political science.     

PAR’s Social Equity Footprint

During the 75th anniversary of Public Administration Review (PAR), this article examines the social equity scholarship published in PAR from 1940 to 2013. Less than 5 percent of all articles published in PAR since its inception focus on social equity. The articles published in PAR are primarily concentrated within the areas of personnel and public policy. Very few articles were published in the areas of budgeting or ethics. While social equity scholarship published in PAR has made a valuable contribution to understanding the career inequities of women and minorities in the public sector, scholars and professionals need to more thoroughly examine the black box of agency practice and structural inequities to examine why they persist. The challenge for future social equity research in public administration is to examine broader dimensions of equity and to understand how social inequities in administration can be mitigated.     

The Present and (Normative) Future of Public Administration and Implications for ASPA

ASPA's future is intertwined with institutional trends in public administration, shaped especially by the directions of today's network governance. The implications for the future of ASPA and of other public administration professional associations are significant. In the author's view, ASPA must hold on to its unique generalist niche, but she counsels that ASPA should pay closer attention to advancing democratic and social equity issues throughout government.     

The Role of IPAA: Public Presentation — Key Issues in Governance

In the December 1997 issue of this journal our editors expressed concern about the decline in teaching of public administration. This does not reflect any decline in the overall level of involvement by government in the economy or society. Rather it seems to reflect changing perceptions of what is needed to succeed in public administration.
This in turn raises the very important issue of what we as a society expect from our future public administrators. While many management skills are common to both business and the public sector, public administration needs to extend beyond the limits of business management to comprehend issues such as accountability, probity and policy processes. Indeed it is increasingly being recognised that what is at stake is not just management per se, but rather the broader array of relationships involved in good governance.
The Institute of Public Administration Australia has over the years played an important role in bringing practitioners and teachers together to help foster a better appreciation of these issues. Now more than ever, when the public sector is experiencing considerable change, there needs to be a lively forum where these broader issues of public administration can be debated and new approaches can be tested.
The National Council of the Institute has accordingly been considering how the Institute might encourage a wider public appreciation of good governance. In order to assist in this process and to provide some guidance to spokepersons, the Council has agreed the following Statement. We hope that all members of the Institute will find this Statement helpful and will be encouraged to promote the ideals it seeks to uphold.     

TEACHING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: EDUCATION OR TRAINING?*

Abstract: There is an ambivalence in attitudes to public administration as a field of study among both academics and practitioners in Australia. Teachers, researchers, students, public servants seeking training and managers have differing interests and expectations. Disagreements about the field have contributed to the lack of a unified framework of concepts, while the field has fragmented into public administration, public policy and public management, aside from other divisions such as "old" versus "new" public administration. "Education" and "training" have taken diverging paths and academics and practitioners have drifted apart. There needs to be a closer dialogue that can only be based on a generally agreed paradigm for Australian Public Administration as a field of study.     

Trends in the Study of Public Administration: Empirical and Qualitative Observations from Public Administration Review, 2000–2009

What are the apparent research and methodological trends in PAR’s content over the past decade? From the perspective of the journal’s 70‐year history, with its aim to “mesh” practitioner and academic knowledge creation, topical coverage since 2000 reflects striking continuity, emphasizing many of the “bread and butter” administrative issues such as planning, human resources, budgeting, and public management. A marked increase in coverage is apparent in the application of more sophisticated quantitative statistical methodology, as well as in the number of female authors, while the number of practitioner authors declined sharply. Throughout the first turbulent decade of the twenty‐first century, three intellectual themes stood out: evaluations of New Public Management, connections between practitioners and academicians, and responsiveness to immediate social, economic, and political challenges. Given the constant demand for usable knowledge, scholars seem to have marginalized attention to the historical context and epistemological foundations of the study. The central challenge in the years ahead will be to effectively use research methods in response to the big questions of government and society that defy measurement. Since many [empiricists], especially the younger, do not know very much about epistemology, they tend to be quite dogmatic about the one set of canons that dominate them. —C. Wright Mills, 1959     

Ethics in Government: No Matter How Long and Dark the Night

This work examines attitudes about ethics in American government during the turbulent time from the end of the past century to the beginning of the new. Using data from a national survey, the authors explore views toward ethics in society and integrity in public agencies, with an emphasis on the code of ethics of the American Society for Public Administration. The results not only reveal considerable continuity over the years but also suggest that individual managers are increasingly empowered, that agencies are affecting positive change, and that the ASPA code may be influencing management practices. The implications of the findings for ASPA ethics initiatives are considered.     

国际学术界对中国公共管理的研究现状——论题、理论视角与方法

以SSCI收录的公共管理期刊在1999-2008年间刊登的研究中国公共管理的学术论文为样本,采用实证方法分析从事中国公共管理研究的国际学术界的构成及国内外学者合作研究的现状,并分析其论文论述的主题及采用的理论视角和研究方法.研究结果表明:在国际学术界的构成上中国大陆学者所占比例偏低;在从事国际合作研究方面,大陆学者主动组织国际合作研究的能力较弱;在论题上,国际学术界研究的主题与国内学者关注的重大热点问题吻合度较高;五成以上的论文运用实证研究方法,研究设计及分析方法以案例研究为主,但进行理论检验的论文相对较少.在分析研究结果的基础上提出了关于中国公共管理研究实现科学化、国际化与本土化相结合路径的具体设想.     

当代西方公共管理前沿理论述评

公共管理作为一门综合性的学科,其前沿理论五花八门,但其中比较宏观和有持续影响力的当属20世纪年70代末和80年代初兴起、到现在还在继续的长达二十多年的政府改革思潮.这一思潮的主要理论基础是20世纪60年代出现的公共选择学派.新公共管理、新公共行政/服务以及治理等前沿理论都与公共选择理论有着密切的关系,是公共选择理论的发展或是在批判公共选择学派的过程中形成的理论.这几个理论相关又不尽相同,与西方思想界都有着十分深厚的渊源,反映着不同思想阵营和不同理论之间的博弈,并没有达到能够相互替代的程度.它们的风行在中国的公共管理学界也引起了层层涟漪和概念上的混淆.从西方公共管理改革实践的历史背景出发,重点就这四大理论的特点、渊源和理论效度进行综述和评论,并讨论了它们对中国公共管理发展的启示.     

从第十一个五年规划建议看公共管理

作为公共管理学科领域中的一员,在学习《中共中央关于制定国民经济和社会发展第十一个五年规划的建议》和国务院温家宝总理就建议讨论稿所作的说明时,联系到我国公共管理实践和学科研究,是很自然的事。因为公共管理正是要为国民经济和社会发展服务的。在这方面,过去所取得的巨大成就和不足之处,都有公共管理状况的因素,今后在实施“十一五”的全过程中,仍然需要继续加强和改进公共管理。为了避免泛泛而谈,根据温总理所归纳的“十一五”时期的主要任务和需要处理好的几个重大关系,从公共管理角度加以论述。坚持统领发展全局和要全面贯彻落实的是科学发展观。     

多视角的公共行政观——评《公共行政学：管理、政治和法律途径》一书

《公共行政学:管理、政治和法律途径》一书是美国著名行政学家戴维·H·罗森布鲁姆和罗伯特·S·克拉夫丘克的力作,是一部在国际公共行政学领域中享有盛誉的经典著作.首先总结了该书提出的三种不同视角的公共行政观、公共行政未来发展九大趋势及坚持传统公共行政范式,力图将(新)公共管理纳入其框架之中的主要观点.其次,分析了该书将法律途径纳入研究视角、多视角地研究公共行政的多元公共行政观及重视公共行政中民主宪政的重要性三方面的贡献及创新之处.再次,指出本书中的三点不足之处:其一是并未达到作者所预期的"合各种途径"的目的;其二是结构略显庞杂,论述不够深入、细致;其三是视角较为狭隘,仅局限于美国.最后,对于该书对我国的借鉴与启示作用,认为:一方面由于中、美国情差异很大,应该慎重对待该书中的相关理论;另一方面应借鉴该书中适用中国的经验、方法,推进中国公共行政理论与实践的发展.