A difference that is not a difference

This symposium illustrates a serious problem. There has been a great deal of fragmentation in the field of public administration in the last two decades. For three decades, from the 40's through some of the 70's, public administration was able to encompass many diverse approaches within its boundaries. However, dissatisfaction with traditional public administration content, methodology, incrementalism, and administrative management led to divisions in the field of public policy and public management that have separated themselves from public administration. The desire for separateness is seen in changed names of academic programs and degrees, different course content and separate professional associations. The symposium was designed to try to stimulate debate and discussion of the ties rather than differences in the field.

This article discusses the differences from the standpoint of the students, the practitioners of public administration, the faculty and the public. The conclusion is that there is much more which should join these programs than separate them and that the need to produce leaders for the public service requires strong places in the academic world for these programs. The field would be stronger if those who argue for public policy, public management and public affairs separate and unequal from public administration would engage in dialogue to take the best of all these approaches and merge into a stronger whole. The common concern with the public nature of the profession and the need to educate public leaders overrides most of the perceived differences. The weakness in the perception of the field generally and in the academic world caused by these splits will continue until more common efforts are undertaken.

Public policy has contributed a great deal to improving methodological rigor in the field. Public management has been important in making the leap from policy to implementation. These differences have changed public administration considerably. But the parts of the field are not sufficiently aware of each other. Analysis of all the programs finds more in common than is acknowledged and finds that these differences do not make a real difference.

It is time to begin discussion of how to make all parts of this field stronger, to improve the academic training, to increase the link between theory and practice, and to work together to improve the public image of public service. To do this, these divisions must be acknowledged and brought together into a stronger professional program for the public service.     

A Russia that can say “no”?

A rather consistent picture of Russian domestic politics and foreign policy in Putin's second presidential term emerges from the four works discussed. Elements of authoritarian rule, welcome or at least acceptable to large segments of a public weary of the political and economic disorder of Yeltsin's time, combine with Russia's growing energy-driven economic strength to provide a stable environment, and broad support for the regime. These strengths are expressed externally in a more assertive foreign policy, whose manifestations in both trade and security areas pose challenges for the US, and its EU and NATO allies.     

二战中一幅拯救英国的秘密地图

众所周知,美国在第二次世界大战初期受国内孤立主义的影响,一直置身于战争之外,不愿介入欧洲的战事.尽管它在欧洲遭受灭顶之灾的同盟兄弟英国再三向其呼吁伸出援助之手,但在第一次世界大战中因奉行"中立主义"大获好处的美国人,此时仍乐得在大西洋彼岸隔岸观火.然而,就在战争爆发两年之后,一幅地图却使美国彻底放弃了孤立主义政策,投身到伟大的世界反法西斯战争之中,从而不仅拯救了英国,而且也改变了欧洲和二战的命运.     

Substantive Participation: A Model of Public Participation that Works for Citizens and Administrators

Decision-makers and affected parties engaged in solving contemporary governmental problems are recognizing that traditional decision-making strategies are insufficient. A participatory democracy approach to public participation has been offered as a potential solution to these problems; however, a more sophisticated understanding of this approach is needed. This study defines a more substantive brand of public participation, identifies barriers to its implementation, and provides recommendations for implementation. Models of substantive participation should empower and educate all stakeholders, reeducate public administrators, and establish new administrative structures and processes. These objectives as well as a discussion of particular barriers to substantive participation are outlined.     

The issue that inflamed India

The 1 issue, more than anything else, that cost Indira Gandhi the election in India was her mass sterilization campaign. Although no one questions India's need for an effective family planning program, the government's program to vasectomize millions of Indian men who had fathered 2 or more children was ruthlessly and often illegally applied and came to symbolize the dangers of authoritarian rule. The program's target was 4.3 million sterilizations; the campaign produced 7.8 million between April 1976 and January 1977. In an effort to ensure the program's success, the government censors prohibited newspapers from publishing any criticism of family planning. 6 months ago the Family Planning Council claimed that "a most favorable climate" has been created for the voluntary acceptance of sterilization. In a recent tour of the Indian countryside this claim was found to be untrue. None of the villagers this writer spoke to had been offered any guidance by a family planning worker. There had been no explanation, for example, that sterilization is not responsible for impotence. By last week when the votes were counted, the pattern was clear. In states where the sterilization program had been pursued with the most zeal but the least preparation, the defection from the Congress Party was the most severe.