APPLICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL-AGENT MODELS TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY DECISION MAKING

ABSTRACT

This paper surveys literature from Economics, Accounting, and Management to address theoretical issues in Public Administration regarding government provided services in order to contribute to a formal connection between principal-agent models in these disciplines and public policy administration decision-making. In particular, it addresses the question: What theoretical properties of the services themselves might guide (a) the choice of producer of the services (government or outsourcing firm/contractor), and (b) the accountability imposed for the work produced. It is found that a theoretical framework of principal-agent models that includes the decision of whether to contract out can be useful as a first step in systematically formulating the government's decision for a variety of goods/services. This provides an alterative to the identification of key decision properties “from the ground up” for each good or service the government provides.     

The communicative policy maker revisited: public administration in a twenty-first century cultural-choice framework

In recent years, public administration thinking shifts the focus from the internal public organisation behaviour towards cross-boundary operation that is, operation across governments and sectors. Public bureaucrats become agents in a multiple-interest political environment within which not only technical management issues are discussed, but also dynamic public values are shaped through a dialogical process. In a cultural choice framework, governments operate different service portfolios and the source of allocation problems occurs due to interdependencies between these functions and variation in public preferences. Beyond service production costs, there exist variable characteristics, such as citizen interest, market competition, and managerial structure and operating behaviour in the aggregate responsibilities governments take. Progressive public administrators need to respond to a threefold challenge: The global versus local challenge to define cultural variability; the leadership challenge to interact with citizens; and the cross-boundary challenge to develop a collaborative rather than a competitive future.     

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.     

The future of professionalization and professionalism in public administration: Advancements,barriers, and prospects

This article examines the advancements, barriers, and prospects of the field of public administration as it seeks professionalism through professionalization. Overall, this essay delves into six broad areas of advancement and an equal number of obstacles. The milestones focus on the criteria of a profession and public administration's fulfillment of those standards, far-reaching credentialization, the expanding entry of women and minorities, the development of performance criteria, intergovernmental networking, and an expansion of associations. The impediments to the further evolution of the field toward professional development include the continuing value conflicts over the ultimate purposes of the field; the persistent politicization of the federal workforce; the inability of public servants to affect the uses of privatization; the erosion of national, state, and local governmental human-resource capacity; the confusion over the teaching of ethics and the promulgation of operational codes; and the prevalence of authoritarian administration without significant democratic inroads. The respective enumerations were not intended to suggest an exact symmetry between accomplishments and obstacles in the field--only that progress and deficiencies are prominent and substantial. Nor were these considered lists intended as exhaustive.

The central theme of this article is that, paradoxically, the prospects of this profession are encouraging because of the growing public need for its services despite persistent, widespread unpopularity. This research concludes that public administrators face an ambivalent future in which their emerging profession continues to prosper and expand amidst increasing alienation and frustration from the public whom they serve. This irony may not be alleviated until there is a socially and politically agreed-upon agenda for public servants to execute. If such a consensus is ever forged, then public administrators may become popular as well as professionally effective.     

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.     

Competing motives in the formation of american public administration

The intellectual study of public administration was developed by two separate groups with two distinctive orientations to the field, called here the “Public Service” and the “Public Management” orientations. Both orientations have coexisted in public administration despite their differences largely because they each addresses some of the weaknesses of the other. The continuing tug of war between the orientations provides much of public administration's confusion over its sense of purpose and identity, but also much of its dynamic nature.     

Challenges to american public administration: complexity,bureaucratization, and the culture of distrust

In the United States, the development of public administration has depended on its different historic challenges. There have been periods characterized by much contemplation of “why things don’t work,” when one hears more about the problems of the field than about solutions. In contrast, solutions become the center of discussions during periods of optimism. Public Administration in the United States has seemingly entered an era of reform over the past decade. Such an era is characterized by a major change in attitute, particuarly towards two challenges, those of complexity and bureaucratization. The treatment of these challenges has gone from pessimistic views of the mid-1970s to the current more proactive approaches. Public administration in the United States has always had to contend with its low level of legitimacy, but every so often the level of distrust would decrease enough for the nation's leaders to carry out needed reforms. Such a time is approaching as public administrators in the United States prepare to take on the challenges of complexity and bureaucratization. To do so effectivelly, however, requires a greater level degree of trust than is now forthcoming from the public. Until the cultural challenge is confronted, all other efforts are likely to fail. Looking at how the other challenges have been transformed can help us underestand what it takes to transform a challenge from an obstacle into a target for change. Less optimistically, it may be necessary to wait until the culture evolves on its own.     

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.     

Symposium: Professionalization and professionalism in public administration

The Symposium on Professionalization and Professionalism in Public Administration, contained in this volume of The International Journal of Public Administration, presents some of the most recent outlooks of prominent scholars and practitioners in the field. They have offered their research and insights into a subject of perennial importance. They have charted the significant progress being made in public administration toward its professional development. This collection of refereed articles is a survey updating the evolution of the field in this regard. Several features are noteworthy. First, the articles are arrayed from general to specific--that is, from theoretical presentations and overviews to case studies. Second, the case studies have been arranged from the federal level to sub-national jurisdictions. Third, the Symposium examines not only professional developments in public administration but also the mechanisms engendering and supporting such changes--namely, associations and formal higher education.

In addition to their other relationships, the articles also bear epistimological links to one another. A precis of these contributions makes this point evident. The first article, “Specifying Elements of Professionalism and the Process of Professionalization” by John J. Gargan, offers an interdisciplinary perspective on these two concepts. His coverage suggests that characteristics of a profession are no different for public administration than they are for other disciplines in the social sciences or in the natural sciences as well, although the seventh essay in this symposium challenges this perspective. Gargan posits that all professions, developed as well as evolving, concern themselves with three broad issues: (1) theory generation (the creation of basic knowledge and the formation, alteration, or replacement of paradigms); (2) theory translation and advocacy (the establishment of education processes); and (3) theory implementation and routinization (the applications of knowledge to human affairs through standardized practice). All three processes are concomitants of one another, and public administration has been no exception.

The second contribution, “Public Official Associations and Professionalism” by Jeremy F. Plant and David S. Arnold, develops the second and third issues presented in Gargan's essay. They focus on the roles of associations as illustrations of a genre of education processes and as vehicles for bringing a greater degree of homogeneity to the field of public administration. Furthermore, they postulate that, in seeking to fulfill these roles, associations have been moving toward convergence. Their typology stipulates the existence of two kinds of public administration associations: (1) professional-specialist and (2) political-generalist. The first type, made up of public servant careerists, including members of federal and state senior executive services, has been becoming more political whereas the second kind, consisting of elected political officials (especially governors, mayors, and legislators) has been proceeding in a managerial direction, regardless of party affiliation and ideology. Both types of organizations are melding since they have become increasingly symbiotic hybrids. The authors captured this trend when they commented: “As players in the policy arena, professional association and generalist, political associations are increasingly finding ways to work together.”

The third essay, “The Ideology of Professionalism in Public Administration: Implications for Education” by Curtis Ventriss, also extends Gargan's work but in a narrower way than the Plant-Arnold article. Ventriss focuses on theory translation and advocacy not from an associational standpoint but from the vista of higher education. He fears that the pedagogical regime for public administration is succeeding too well in professionalizing the field and in thus making it more valuable in serving the state. He argues that professionalism tends to constrain thought in the discipline so that it cannot readily conceive of purposes apart from such service. This alleged parochialism detracts from what Ventriss thinks the primary purpose of public administration ought to be: the inculcation of citizenship. Radically, he proposes an end to traditional public administration instructional programs but scattering their elements among other disciplines. He questions implicitly the distinction, going back to Woodrow Wilson, between techniques, which can be value neutral, and their applications, which can involve normative choices. Stated another way, he asks whether public administration can be made safe for democracy because he doubts but hopes, like Frederick Mosher, that universities can perform such a function.

The fourth article, “The Future of Professionalization and Professionalism in Public Administration: Advancements, Barriers, and Prospects” by the co-editors of this symposium, is the last presentation falling within the framework of Gargan's piece. Whereas Gargan sought to delineate the nature of professional status, Gazell and Pugh examine the extent to which the field has reached this long-sought goal. They explore six broad areas of advancement and an equal number of obstacles and conclude that, despite widespread popular animus toward governments at all levels, the prospects of the field are favorable, mainly because of an expanding public need for its services. The authors view professionalization (process) and professionalism (result) as fully compatible with the achievement of a genuinely democratic state. In fact, the authors see professional status for public administration as necessary for making representative governments effective enough either to survive or become more democratic. There is always a risk that professional development could eventually become an end in itself, threatening the achievement of a pervasive democratic order. Implicit in the article are the ideas that the nexus between effectiveness and democracy is curvilinear but that the quest for effectiveness through professionalism has not yet reached a point of diminishing returns--that is, threatening democratic evolution.

The fifth presentation, “Professionalizing the American States in the 1990s” by Beverly A. Cigler, is the first of a series of essays reporting on the progress of professionalism in government at various levels. The author furnishes an overview of professional developments in state governments throughout the nation. In particular, she meticulously catalogs efforts toward professionalism in the executive branches of such governments, although coverage of the judicial and legislative branches would be necessary for a complete picture. However, such an expansion would have taken her far beyond the scope of her article. Especially notable is her exploration of executive reorganizations, commissions on effectiveness, and multi-agency initiatives. She sums up a potpourri of efforts, often gubernatorially inspired and sustained, by remarking: “Collectively, the various activities pursued by the states have the potential to change what government does and how it operates.” She sees executive-branch professionalization and professionalism as steps toward revitalizing (or reinventing) government at the state level.

The sixth article, “Professionalization within a Traditional Political Culture: A Case Study of South Carolina” by Steven W. Hays and Bruce F. Duke, represents a specific example of what Cigler covers generally. Hays and Duke make at least three significant contributions. One is that they chronicle the earliest movements toward professionalism in a state, leading to the possibility that it has had similar origins in other jurisdictions at this level of government. A second contribution is that such change can take place despite a spate of systemic obstacles such as decentralized personnel systems, fragmented political authority, and an absence of gubernatorial support. A third feature is the presentation of an interstate model for measuring professional development, including such criteria as public management certification, graduate degrees, and formal ethical codes. Despite various structural problems the authors argue: “Considering the distance traveled and the obstacles overcome, there is no disputing the conclusion that tremendous progress has occurred over the past two decades [in South Carolina].”

The seventh study, “Professional Leadership in Local Government” by Ruth Hoogland DeHoog and Gordon P. Whitaker, presents an overview of professionalization and professionalism at the local level. What is novel here is the suggestion that professionalism at this level of government may be different than at other realms of government and than in the private sector. Broadly speaking, the primary difference is that professionalism in the public sector, especially in government, involves less autonomy because of greater accountability for appointed and elected officials. In particular, there are three salient distinctions: a respect for expertise on the part of elected officials, deference to their legitimacy and authority, and an additional acceptance of responsibility to the people at large (that is, the public interest). Also stressed is a greater role of ethics in professional development with a highlighting of the role of the International City Management Association's efforts to bring improvement in this area. For instance, the authors point out: “Managers must learn these values through professional education, professional association contacts, and work with other professionals in local government.”

The eighth article in this symposium, “The Possibility of Professionalism in County Management” by James H. Svara, complements the DeHoog-Whitaker essay by providing a case study focusing on local public management in one state: North Carolina. Svara interviewed a cross-section of county executives and concerned himself with the extent of their professionalization and professionalism. To illuminate these developments, he compared the positions of county and city managers, using the latter as a model towards whom the former aspire. Generally, he found, that county executives have less authority (that is, fewer administrators under their direct control) than their municipal counterparts. However, he also discerned a narrowing gap between these two kinds of officials because of similar pre-job and in-service training received by them and the elected officials to whom they report. In addition, he noted that almost all of the counties in this state now have professional executives and that their advancement has been substantial.

The ninth--and final--contribution, “Decentralization and Initiative: TVA Returns to its Roots” by John G. Stewart and Rena C. Tolbert, is significant in at least four respects. First, the essay presents another case study of professional development--but at the local headquarters of a federal agency: Knoxville, Tennessee. Second, this research centers on professionalization and professionalism in a third (or mixed) sector organization--namely, a public corporation rather than a governmental agency. Third, the professional development of the TVA is distinctive because it has been internally generated, especially due to the efforts of its early leaders (David E. Lilienthal and Gordon R. Clapp), rather than externally imposed, as in the previous case studies. This provenance is analogous to what often takes place in the corporate sector. Lilienthal was instrumental in promoting organizational decentralization and grass-roots democracy as approaches toward improving the viability of a controversial governmental innovation, one widely regarded as “socialistic” at and after its inception. Clapp fostered a managerial culture promoting employee initiative, easy access to top executives, organizational teamwork, labor-management collaboration, and partnerships with states and localities through councils and conferences. Fourth, the authors traced professional development in the TVA through what in this symposium is a unique pattern: strong early efforts, retrenchment through bureaucratization, and, recently, a return to the agency's roots.     

Public administration and public policy: old perspectives,new directions

Public administration has rather studiously avoided serious consideration of its ties to public policy throughout most of this century. The politics/administration dichotomy leaves a lasting legacy. Policy has a central place in the ongoing effort to explain what public administration is and how it functions. Policy defines the purpose of agencies, stipulates much of the detail about their organization, provides authority and legitimacy, and makes them important -- probably the most important--instruments of policy effectuation and evaluation. Public administration has traditionally displayed an interest in management; it has been studied, taught, and practiced as method, “how to.” This instrumentalist orientation has addressed successively different perspectives, all subsumed within the rubric of public administration. The first of these emphasized administrative reform, followed by an interest in scientific management. These left a legacy that largely treated administration as an end in itself, divorced from matters of policy. Further developments during the depression and post-war years gave prominence to human relations and decisionmaking. These newer orientations emphasized public administration's non-involvement with policy, although decisionmaking proved less inward-oriented and contributed some methodological insights for better understanding policy's ties to public administration. Decisionmaking's preoccupation with unifunctional organizations accountable to a single power center has proved a formidable obstacle to empirical investigations of policy/administration ties, however. This dilemma calls for new perspectives from which to study these ties; one promising perspective is the examination of administrative involvement in successive stages of the policy process.     

Public administration in Marshall Dimock's textbooks

This article examines the relationship between Marshall Dimock's positive, broad-based concept of public administration and his approach to writing undergraduate textbooks. Analysis shows that both Dimock's American government and public administration textbooks provide a different slant on public agencies than that available in most current introductory volumes. In particular, his American government textbook is more positive in tone about agencies than are its modern counterparts. The public administration textbook has comparative material that rarely appears in introductory-level textbooks.

This article analyzes how Marshall Dimock's conception of public administration as an important area of study with links to policy and leadership anchored his textbook writing. In the 1950s Dimock co-authored two popular textbooks for basic undergraduate courses, one in American government and the other in public administration.⁽¹⁾

Scholars still debate what textbooks in either field should teach students about public agencies. Cigler and Neiswender argue that current American government textbooks portray administration in a negative light. All authors see bureaucracy as a problem of some sort, few explain the role administrators play in shaping policy and none discuss reasons to enter the public service.⁽²⁾ Cigler and Neiswender suggest that American government textbooks must change to aid accurate perceptions of the administrative role. In particular, they believe the texts must add material on the public service as a profession and compare American agencies with those in other nations.

Since public administration textbooks are a key way that majors in the field learn material, debate ensues on what material they should contain. Recent articles explore how textbooks define key terms such as policy and how they integrate the work of various theorists.⁽³⁾

While all widely-used textbooks deal with both the political environment and internal agency functions (e.g., personnel, finance), no consensus exists on how to allocate space between political and managerial concerns nor on exactly which subtopics should be covered. No consensus exists on how much space should be devoted to policy making and policy analysis with some textbooks covering this topic and others skimming it lightly.

One often cited problem with contemporary texts is the lack of a comparative focus and a concomitant need to internationalize the curriculum.⁽⁴⁾ The thrust of current proposals is that students need a more broad-based education to prepare them for global leadership.

Interestingly, Dimock's approach to public administration led him to write textbooks that in some ways surpass what is available today. While the majority of the topics he presents (and their ordering) are similar to current efforts, he offers unique emphases that deal with the above mentioned criticisms. Far from being an exercise in academic nostalgia, examining Dimock's textbooks is a useful way of giving current writers new insights.

To appreciate Dimock's approach to textbook construction we first have to identify the core concepts behind his approach to public administration education. Afterwards, we can analyze the treatment of public agencies in American Government in Action, relating it to Cigler and Neiswender's critique of contemporary textbooks, and -examine how various editions of Public Administration conceptualize the field.     

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.     

In search of identity: Public administration education in taiwan

Education program plays an important part in transmitting public administration knowledge to future administrators. What constitutes the “core” knowledge is presumably determined by societal expectations. Using Public Administration education in Taiwan as an example, this study finds that there exists a “crisis of identity” which concerns the proper role of administrators -- generalists vs. specialists. Public Administration education program in Taiwan, oriented toward a liberal arts education, has failed, according to some, to provide well trained and qualified students for the public services. The current education programs have resulted in a disjointed process in which the diffusion of public administration knowledge is discontinuous.     

Unpacking value destruction at the intersection between public and private value

Public services do not always create value. Rather, when poorly organized and/or delivered, they can destroy value and make service users' lives worse. However, such “value destruction” is presently weakly conceptualized in public management theory. Consequently, this paper is devoted to the empirical examination of value destruction and hence its conceptualization. At the heart of the paper, we recognize the multiplicity of public value and private value objectives in complex public service environments and the dyadic tension between these two value constellations. Drawing upon qualitative data derived from public carbon reduction projects, we establish a conceptual framework. This framework accounts both for the types of value destruction and for the tension between public and private value. Subsequently, the framework disentangles the value destruction concept into four categories: value ignorance, value disproportion, value backlash, and value exploitation. Finally, the implications of this new conceptual framework for public management theory and practice are explored.     

Public administrators and policy legitimization: Policy analysis,politics and power

This article discusses the factors public administration faculty should incorporate into the curriculum in order to equip students to engage in the policy legitimization process. In order to produce leaders, public administration programs should emphasize the nature of the political system, an understanding of the legitimacy of subgovernments, the importance of coalition building and the psychological factors associated with policy choices.

Integration of policy analysis into the public administration curriculum requires that students be equipped with an in-depth understanding of both the political environment and the political process. This is true because public administrators are deeply involved in the stages of policy development, adoption, and implementation; activities which reach beyond the narrow confines of program management and into the realm of politics. Consequently, public administrators serve in a variety of capacities: as policy advocates, program champions, or as defenders of client interests. It is in these roles that public administrators move into the political arena. Policy analysis activities provide the discipline with the opportunity to move beyond an emphasis on a narrow concern with simply “managing” government and into the realm of policy choice, policy advocacy, political power and the exercise of leadership.

Public administration as a discipline, and teaching faculty in particular, face the challenge of increasing the relevance of the master's degree to policy leadership. Astrid Merget, past president of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, expressed this need for increased emphasis on policy leadership training quite eloquently in 1991:

“Our vision of the holder of a master's degree in our field is that of a leader, not merely a manager or an analyst. But we have not been marketing that vision.”⁽¹⁾

Merget attributes partial responsibility for the low public esteem of government service to the attitudes, teaching, and research activities of public administration faculty who have failed to link the “lofty” activities of government (environmental protection, health care, the promotion of citizen equality) with public administration. Accordingly, the academic standard of “neutrality” governing teaching and research acts as an obstacle to teaching the fundamentals of the goals of public policy. This professional commitment to neutrality places an emphasis on administrative efficiency at the expense of policy advocacy. The need, according to Merget, is to reestablish the linkage between policy formulation and policy management. Such a teaching strategy will enhance the purposefulness of public administration as a career. Failure to do so will relegate public administration programs to the continued production of governmental managers, not administrative leaders.

The integration of policy analysis into the public administration curriculum affords the discipline with the opportunity to focus on policy leadership and escape the limitation associated with an emphasis on program management. Teaching policy analysis skills cannot, and should not, be divorced from the study of politics and the exercise of political power. This is true because politics involves the struggle over the allocation of resources, and public policy is a manifestation of the outcome of that political struggle. Public policy choices reflect, to some degree, the political power of the “winners” and the relative lack of power by “losers.” The study of public policy involves the study of conflict and the exercise of power.

Teaching public administration students about the exercise of power cannot be limited to a discussion of partisan political activities. Public administrators serve in an environment steeped in the exercise of partisan and bureaucratic power.⁽²⁾ It is practitioners of public administration who formulate, modify and implement public policy choices. Such bureaucratic activity is appropriate, provided that it is legitimated by the political system. Legitimacy can be provided to public administrators only by political institutions through the political process.

Teaching public administration students about policy analysis and policy advocacy necessitates an understanding of the complexities associated with the concepts of policy legitimacy and policy legitimization.     

Strengthening Public Administration Research: Identifying Boundaries and Horizons

Since the early days of the field, public administration research has been a work in progress. Many authors have struggled to find the proper role of research in the field. Interest in the topic intensified over the last couple of decades, as a perception developed that the quality and usefulness of work had fallen decidedly behind other academic disciplines. While a rich literature has developed debating the merits of public administration research, the resulting product does not provide a clear direction for reform-minded researchers to follow. In this article, we seek to organize this material in ways that will make it more useful. Our analysis identifies hard and soft barriers preventing progress and examines three dilemmas facing public administration researchers: theoretical versus conceptual research, academically sophisticated methods versus widely accessible methods, and an academic versus a practitioner focus. Through our discussion of these dilemmas, we seek to clarify the issues facing researchers and help them make more informed choices.     

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.     

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.