The new public personnel and the new public service

The New Public Administration sought a public service whose legitimacy would be based, in part, on its promotion of “social equity.” Since 1968, several personnel changes congruent with the New Public Administration have occurred: traditional managerial authority over public employees has been reduced through collective bargaining and changes in constitutional doctrines; the public service has become more socially representative; establishing a representative bureaucracy has become an important policy goal; more emphasis is now placed on employee participation in the work place; and legal changes regarding public administrators’ liability have promoted an “inner check” on their behavior. At the same time, however, broad systemic changes involving decentralization and the relationship between political officials and career civil servants have tended to undercut the impact of those changes in personnel. The theories of Minnowbrook I, therefore, have proven insufficient as a foundation for a new public service. Grounding the public service's legitimacy in the U.S. Constitution is a more promising alternative and is strongly recommended.

The New Public Administration, like other historical calls for drastic administrative change in the United States, sought to develop a new basis for public administrative legitimacy. Earlier successful movements grounded the legitimacy of the public service in high social standing and leadership, representativeness and close relationship to political parties, or in putative political neutrality and scientific managerial and technical expertise. To these bases, the New Public Administration sought to add “social equity.” As George Frederickson explained, “Administrators are not neutral. They should be committed to both good management and social equity as values, things to be achieved, or rationales. “⁽¹⁾ Social equity was defined as “includ[ing] activities designed to enhance the political power and economic well being of … [disadvantaged] minorities.” It was necessary because “the procedures of representative democracy presently operate in a way that either fails or only very gradually attempts to reverse systematic discrimination against” these groups.⁽²⁾

Like the Federalists, the Jacksonians, and the civil service reformers and progressives before it, the New Public Administration focused upon administrative reform as a means of redistributing political power.⁽³⁾ Also, like these earlier movements, the New Public Administration included a model of a new type of public servant. This article sets forth that new model and considers the extent to which the major changes that have actually taken place in public personnel administration since 1968 are congruent with it. We find that while contemporary public personnel reflects many of the values and concerns advanced by the New Public Administration, substantial changes in the political environment of public administration have frustrated the development of a new public service that would encompass the larger goals and ideals expressed at Minnowbrook I. Building on the trends of the past two decades, this article also speculates about the future. Our conclusion is that ultimately the public service's legitimacy must be grounded in the Constitution. Although its focus is on macro-level political and administrative developments, the broad changes it discusses provide the framework from which many contemporary personnel work-life issues, such as pay equity and flexitime, have emerged.     

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood:” Public administration,the management orthodoxy,and civic humanism

Public administration is confronted with a dilemma: whether to follow the course of the management orthodoxy; or to follow the course of civic humanism. It is argued that the profession should follow the latter path. Democratic public administration must be informed by a civic idealism, centering on civic virtue, that insures that morality will be realized in action. Yet in recent years, public administration has become overly entranced with the orthodoxy of the management sciences. The profession's ties with the management sciences have proven to be practically advantageous, but, overall, the association has been negative. Public administration has begun to lose its soul: its sense of civic idealism. The management orthodoxy adopts a more positivist stance, because virtue will not yield to the dominant methodology and is, hence, considered to be unreliable. A civic humanist approach to public administration requires a rather exalted notion of human potential, and a conception of political service as something both necessary and unique. Thus, in a correctly ordered republic, a public administration, guided by civic humanism, would consider the promotion of virtue among all citizens as a primary responsibility.

The 19th century brought about the creation of the modern organization. The early organizationalists argued that society would no longer need to rely upon the unpredictable virtue of its leaders and citizens. Instead, through scientific administration, all societal needs could be assessed and met by organizations. That assumption, in a more sophisticated guise, has carried over to the present day. Thus, the primary responsibility of organizational leadership is to ensure organizational survival. Such leaders are not required to be individuals of virtue; they only need to be effective motivators and managers.

If this argument is accepted, then the question becomes one of how public administration can recover its soul. First, the core of the public administration curriculum must be a political philosophy centering upon civic humanism. Second, public management goals and techniques must be modified to promulgate civic virtue. Granted, these recommendations are overtly idealistic, but, then, public administration should be an idealistic profession.     

Teaching public policy in a public administration program

An overlooked aspect of academic concern in public administration is the realm of public policy. Policy intrudes into administration at a number of crucial points; administration influences the direction and emphasis of policy in various ways. These interrelationships warrant more attention in the training of public administrators. Regrettably, they have remained largely off-limits in the training of public administrators. Why and how we should proceed to alter this state of affairs is the essence of the symposium that follows.     

From a discipline without a subject to a subject without a discipline.

This article suggests an approach to the classical issues of the public administration theory, through the so-called new institutionalism. It argues that public policies could be taken by public administration theory as a new object of study, which this theory has gradually lost in the past. Nevertheless, whether the policy sciences can be useful1 or not to develop public administration as a discipline depends on the theoretical bridge offered by the new institutional approach. To propose how and why is the main objective of this article, based on the Mexican academic debate.     

Moral education and the teaching of public administration ethics

This article discusses two major objections to moral education and argues that a professional education in public administration cannot avoid some intrusions upon the personal freedom of its students nor can it avoid a certain degree of indoctrination. It is suggested that the benefits of a morally educated but civic-minded professional outweigh the costs of an autonomous professional.     

The economic perspective on public administration

Public administration as a body of thought and field of study is changing from a paradigm dominated by political science to an eclectic array of theoretical contributions from all of the social sciences, particularly economics. Basic education and training in economics is essential to an effective contemporary public administration. Without a fundamental understanding of economics the “do-it-yourself-economics” which is practiced in policy-making contributes to basic errors in policy.

As the size and significance of the public sector has grown, increased attention has been paid to the discipline of public administration. What began as a structured way of describing the operation and structure of public management and public organizations has evolved into a discipline that has a much broader scope—the analysis of policy making in the public and not-for-profit sectors. In addition, employment in the public administration profession is more likely to be viewed as a vocation rather than as an avocation, in contrast to the past.

Once the repository of generalists in the areas of public management and organizational behavior, public administration has become a hodgepodge of individuals with varied backgrounds and training. This has resulted in a discipline that has notable strengths and weaknesses. A major weakness, and source of criticism from outsiders, is the discipline's lack of a paradigm—there is no easily identifiable intellectual structure. Its strength lies in the diverse theoretical, conceptual, and methodological contributions borrowed from other disciplines.

The most prominent contributor has been political science, where the discipline of public administration had its origins. Political science's influence on public administration still is evident: numerous public administration programs are located in political science departments; a large number of faculty in public administration programs are political scientists by training; and public administration professional societies and publications are dominated by political scientists.

Economics has made forays into public administration and established garrisons in some of the larger and more prominent programs. But, economics has failed to have a distinct impact on everyday public policy making. This is evident in many policy decisions that lack much semblance of basic economic understanding on the part of decision makers. Recent examples include the handling of the federal deficit, solutions to airway and airport congestion, the war on poverty, housing programs, dealings with international trading partners, proposed solutions to the third world debt crisis, resolution of the acid rain problem, and so forth.

Although other explanations can be offered for the absence of good economic reasoning in many policy decisions, a lot of the blame lies with public administration's failure to adequately integrate economics. Economics does not wield substantial influence in either the discipline's curricular matter or administrative structure. This failure partially can be attributed to a lack of understanding of what economics has to offer the discipline and partially can be attributed to the insolent demeanor of many economists.

This paper proposes to discuss what role economics can and should play in public administration. First, the relationship between public administration and economics is discussed. Second, deficiencies within the economics discipline that keep it from becoming an integral component of everyday policy making are discussed. Finally, ways to better blend economics into public policy making are proposed.     

The ideology of professionalism in public administration: implications for education

One of the most influential themes in contemporary public administration is the focus on professionalism. As Dwight Waldo has argued, public administration should act as if it were a profession even if there is hardly any chance of becoming one. This article will explore the pedagogical implications of the ideology of professionalism on education, and how it has impacted the intellectual development of the field. It will be argued that the intellectual baggage of professionalism poses critical challenges to the meaning and substantive purpose of public administration.     

The unassailable principle: why luther gulick searched for a science of administration

Luther Gulick's two contributions to the Papers on the Science of Administration are often regarded as a statement of the “orthodoxy” in the field of public administration in the pre-war period. This paper challenges this view. It argues that the two basic claims in Gulick's work--the notion that public administration could be considered as a science, and that field could be studied without regard to politics--were widely contested throughout the 1920's and 1930's. Gulick adhered to these claims in part because they were useful in protecting a young and weakly-institutionalized field against powerful critics. By the late 1930's, academics in public administration may have confronted a dilemma: the position staked out by Gulick and others, while essential to the development of the field, was regarded by many within the field as being intellectually untenable.     

The public board as public administration (and citizens as administrative participants)

Service on public boards is described in a normative model of public administration. Further, public boards, such as the historic architectural review boards discussed here, provide unique oppportunities for students of government and public administration. The public board serves an important balance within the local government. Public boards provide expertise not easily purchased by government; public boards provide an important interface for citizens to their elected government and their career public administration; and public boards provide an important opportunity for citizens to involve themselves with their government. This citizen as administrative participant is not typically schooled in government or in public administration, but an opportunity exists for aggressive public administration programs.     

Change leadership and change embeddedness in public organizations: Connecting macrolevel reform to microlevel implementation

Governments initiate major public sector reforms for various reasons. Although change leadership appears crucial, its role in implementing reforms in public organizations receives scant attention. Insights from public administration and change management literature help to bridge the gap between these macrolevel and microlevel perspectives. Our multilevel study of two youth care organizations addressing public sector reform explores how leadership behavior—and in interaction between top and middle managers—contributes to the concept of what we call change embeddedness among front-line employees. The use of leadership behaviors during the reform that are leader centric (shaping) appear to be associated with greater ambiguity and worse change embeddedness. However, leadership focused on engaging employees and boundary spanning with external organizations seems to support the embeddedness of the reform, especially when these behaviors are connected to a clear sense of purpose around the change.     

Character ethics and public administration

Character ethics addresses the conditions, values, and ideas that give shape to our ways of life - to our character as a people. It has formed an integral part of political life and thought throughout history. It has, however, fallen to neglect during much of this century. We ignore it at our peril. A growing communitarian movement has renewed attention to character or “virtue” ethics in recent years, much of it focused on local, grassroots initiatives. This essay introduces the reader to some basic aspects of character ethics, and then presents an argument for its relevance to public administration. The argument focuses on the application of character ethics to organizational-economic arrangements and conditions which form a great part of the public administration's responsibilities. The organizational economy constitutes a vital foundation for shaping civic character. Since public administration influences the organizational economy, our ethical responsibilities should include continually examining practices in this arena for their general effects on our habits and dispositions as a people.

Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.

James Madison⁽¹⁾     

Private administration of a public function: The news election service

The United States government has no elections office and does not attempt to administer congressional and presidential elections. The responsibility for the administration of elections and certification of winners in the United States national elections rests with the states. The states divide election administration responsibilities between state and local election officials, whose objective is an efficiently administered honest election, with the ballots correctly tabulated. The formal structure of election administration in the United States is not capable of providing tirely results of the presidential and congressional election. Similar structural difficulties in other policy areas often result in ad hoc operating agreements or informal cooperation among agencies at different levels of the federal system. In the case of election administration, however, the public officials have abdicated responsibility for election night aqgregation of the national Vote totals to a private organization, News Election Service, which is owned by five major news organizations. This private organization performs without a contract, without public compensation, and without supervision by public officials. It makes decisions concerning its duties according to its own criteria. The questions of responsibility and accountability have not arisen in part because of the private organization's performance record and in part because the responsibility was assumed gradually over a lengthy period without ever being evaluated as an item on the public agenda.     

Prudent constitutionalism: hamiltonian lessons for a responsible public administration

Alexander Hamilton's career provides much insight about responsible public administration. This article emphasizes his linking of character and competence in public administration to our American constitutional form and values. His “prudent constitutionalism” yielded a normative theory of action that remains relevant though largely unexamined.     

Public administration theory a futurist vision

As the world becomes increasingly interdependent, Americans interested in public administration will begin to realize that it is a universal phenomenon and field of inquiry that attracts the attention of researchers and teachers in all countries of the world. This will lead them to stop equating American governance with Public Administration. They will come to see that, in a comparative frame of reference, American bureaucracy, its administrative practices and political functions are quite unique. Comparative Public Administration as a special focus of study will disappear because all administrative studies must be comparative, and “American Public Administration” will gain recognition as one of many parochial foci for research as a country-specific emphasis.

Before this shift in perspective can gain widespread acceptance in America, however, the relevant work of non-American scholars will have to become more generally read in America, and the distinctively American conditions that led to the origin of this field and its subsequent dissemination on a global basis must be recognized.

Among the specific points that this paradigmatic shift will highlight are the following: the reasons why bureauphilia and bureauphobia persist in a context marked by pressure to make administrative studies and performance non-political and to divorce “politics” from “public administration;” the vain effort to gain recognition for Public Administration as either a profession or a discipline; the institutional implications of this false dilemma; the effects of focusing on career civil servants while paying scant attention to other bureaucrats, namely military officers, partisan appointees, retainers and consultants; and the causes and consequences of the American bureaucracy's semi-powered status.     

Chinese public administration: misunderstanding and implications

This paper argues that current research works on Chinese public administration are atheoretical or pre-theoretical, that findings generated could not serve as a basis for the development of a general (or medium-range) theory of Chinese public administration or Chinese bureaucratic behavior, and that atheoretical or pre-theoretical research contributes very little to advancement of usable knowledge for problem-solving. The foci of the discussion in this paper are four major fallacies and problems, namely, over-simplification of causes, misformation of concept, stereotyping, and non-usable knowledge. It is concluded that China scholars should be more theoretically rigorous and work with their counterparts in China in order to contribute to theory-building and practical problem-solving.     

The science of administration,the founders,and theories of political association

Drawing on the work of Michael Oakeshott, this paper seeks to examine the theory of political association underlying Luther Gulick and L. Urwick's Papers on the Science of Administration and to contrast this theory with that underlying the Constitution. It is argued that the authors of the Papers clearly viewed the state as a form of purposive association whereas the Founders of the Constitution in large part saw the state as a form of civil association. This explains the difficulties that reformers such as Gulick faced in realizing their vision of administration within our constitutional framework.

Luther Gulick and L. Urwick's Papers on the Science of Administration (1) represent one of the most important attempts at a synthesis of doctrines in the field of public administration prior to World War II. While the Papers exhibit a variety of approaches and views, they are best known for those authors who, like Gulick and Urwick themselves, took a more classical approach to administration. Such an approach rests on a belief in the virtues of hierarchy and centralization of authority and power in the chief executive; a belief in efficiency as the central value of administration; a belief that there must exist certain principles for good administration applicable to all organizations, regardless of institutional setting; and a belief that such principles are susceptible to empirical scientific discovery and verification. These doctrines, expounded so forcefully in the Papers, formed the basis for the administrative reform movement of the time including the President's Committee on Administrative Management, of which Gulick himself was a member. Indeed, the Papers continue to strongly influence modern efforts at administrative reform.(2)

The purpose of this article is to examine the particular vision of political association which seems to underlie the Papers, and to compare it with the vision of political association which guided the Founders of the Constitution. In doing so, the article will draw upon the political thinking of the late Michael Oakeshott, a British political theorist and philosopher. I shall argue that there is a tension between the vision of political association held by the authors of the Papers and that held by the Founders, and that this tension explains the failure of administrative reformers to reshape the administrative state along the lines of classical public administration doctrines.     

Developing a short scale to assess public leadership

Tummers and Knies (2016) have recently introduced a 21-item scale for the measurement of public leadership to the burgeoning field of leadership research in public administration. However, due to restrictions in survey length and response time, scholars often face practical difficulties when adopting measurement scales of such length. In many subfields of public administration, this results in a proliferation of ad hoc measures of unknown validity, which impedes scholarly progress. The goal of the present study is to develop a short form of the public leadership scale. We build on data from a two-wave study in the German public sector and follow a step-by-step scale reduction procedure. The result is a reliable and valid 11-item scale of public leadership for utilization in public administration research. Since a short scale allows researchers to include additional measures of other constructs, it facilitates the exploration of the nomological network of public leadership.     

Purpose and practice in public administration education: The place of substantive public policy areas

Public administration's early identification with the concept of a strong executive has resulted in an emphasis on staff functions in its graduate education programs. In the practicing world, staff functions are viewed as tools employed in the actual practice of public administrators, namely the delivery of substantive public services. Although public administration is characterized as an applied field, it does not focus its theory building and educative efforts on that which practicing public administrators actually do. The field necessarily imports other disciplines, but it does not provide the unique focus that would justify this borrowing; its current research agenda and training curricula are available in other disciplines. Public administration graduate students should concentrate in individual substantive policy areas, and the field should focus on optimizing organizational arrangments for delivering societal knowledge as public services. Interorganizational theory can provide the common theoretical framework necessary to mitigate the centrifugal effects of a variety of “administrations” within the field. The approach developed by J. Kenneth Benson is outlined; it provides a unique theoretical niche for public administration, yields a framework for comparative analysis, and defines the field's relationship to political science.     

Multicultural public administration: Effects of language diversity and dissimilarity on public employees' attachment to employment

A major part of research in public administration focuses on the impact of ethnic diversity on outcomes such as performance and turnover, and on the management of diversity with regard to different employee groups. Recent research, however, shows the relevance of relational demography in the context of employee inclusion in public organizations. So far, most studies have been based on ethnic differences in countries that can be described as mononational and monolinguistic. The current study advances this stream of research by investigating how diversity and dissimilarity measures affect public employees' attachment to employment in a multicultural public administration in Switzerland. Evidence from a hierarchical multilevel analysis revealed that language diversity and the support for diversity from supervisors affected individuals' attachment. However, our findings on individuals' language dissimilarity related to the inclusion of minorities did not support the assumed crowding‐out effect between diversity and dissimilarity. Implications and avenues for future research are discussed.