“Public Administration is that part of the science of administration which has to do with the government and thus concerns itself primarily with the executive branch where the work of the government is done”
– Gullick and Urwick
Public Administration was first coined in 1887 by the American Constitution. By the end of the 20th century the focus of countries shifted from Public Administration to Development Administration and by the time of the 21st century Development Administration was replaced by Good Governance.
Earlier Roots
In the Indian context, we can trace the evolution of Public Administration during the time of Arthasastra where he dealt with three aspects of Public Administration namely, principles of government; machinery of government; management of personnel. In the western context it is seen in the Greek city states in the works of Plato and Aristotle (e.g.: laws).
Machiavelli’s ‘Prince (1513)’ dealt with administrative problems. The distinction between administration and politics was made by Charles Montesquieu’s ‘Spirit of Laws’. During 1700 – 1740s, Prussia made a systematic study of Public Administration which aimed at training future public servants.
Modern Era
| Phase | Period | Dominant Theme |
| 1 | 1887 – 1926 | Politics – Administration Dichotomy |
| 2 | 1927 – 1937 | Principles of Public Administration – An independent discipline |
| 3 | 1938 – 1947 | Behavioural Challenge |
| 4 | 1948 – 1970 | Crisis of Identity |
| 5 | 1971 – 1980 | New Public Administration |
| 6 | 1980 – present | Paradigmatic Shifts |
Phase 1
“Administration is the most obvious part of government, it is government in action, it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government and is of course, as old as government itself”
– Woodrow Wilson
In 1887, Woodrow Wilson’s, ‘The Study of Administration’ published in Political Quarterly, laid the foundation for the systematic study of Public Administration by arguing that administration and politics should be treated separately. In this way, ‘The Wilsonian Dichotomy’ was established and picked up by other writers like Frank J. Goodnow who developed this Wilsonian theme further, in where he argued from his book, ‘Politics and Administration (1900)’ that politics has to do with policies and administration to do with the execution of such policies.
In 1926, L.D. White released ‘An Introduction to the study of Public Administration’ which was the first text on the subject. His book faithfully reflects the dominant theme of dichotomy between politics and administration. He emphasized efficiency and economy as watchwords of Public Administration .
Phase 2
This phase is marked by the tendency to evoke a ‘value free science of management’. W.F. Willoughby’s Principles of Public Administration (1927) represents the new thrust in thinking i.e. he further emphasized the Wilsonian Dichotomy by establishing the discipline of Public Administration as an independent social science. This period reached its climax in 1937 when Luther H. Gulick and Lyndall Urwick’s, ‘Papers on the Scienc of Administration’. They tried to develop Universal Principles to achieve organizational goals.
E.g.: They coined the acronym ‘POSDCORB’ i.e. Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting and Budgeting to promote 7 principles of admnistration.
Thus, 1927 – 37 were golden years of ‘principles and techniques in the life of Public Administration.
Phase 3
Simon Barnard article on ‘The Proverbs of Administration (1946)’ stated that there is no such thing as principles of administration and thereby compared them to proverbs. Robert Dahl’s, ‘The Science of Public Administration (1947)’ emphasized the need to take into account normative considerations, human behaviour and sociological and other factors while defining the parameters of this subject. Further, the Hawthorne experiments studies (1924 – 40) was that the social and psychological factors at the workplace are the major determinants of workers satisfaction and organizational outputs. Thus, this phase brought the whole new thinking of behaviouralism in Public Administration .
Phase 4
This phase witnessed the spectacle of Political Science not only letting Public Administration separate itself from it, but also not fostering and encouraging its growth and development within its own field. Therefore, in the post World War II period, the credentials of Public Administration to being a science and a distinct discipline and apart from political science were questioned. This led to the twin development of Public Administration being viewed as Political Science and also as Administrative Science.
Phase 5
The Minnowbrook Conference (USA, 1968) attempted to define Public Administration anew. Frank Marini (ed) ‘Towards a New Public Administration’ contains the proceedings of this seminar.
New Public Administration puts the focus on moral, ethics and values. It rejects the idea that administrators must be value-neutral. On the contrary, it finds a place for values and examines the possible conflicts in value clusters. It upholds bureaucratic responsiveness, citizen participation in decision-making, social equity and administrative responsibility for programme effectiveness as constituents of public service ethic. The emphasis must be proactive and client-oriented rather than being exclusively concerned with the virtues of economy and efficiency in administration.
E.g.: Dwight Waldo (ed), ‘Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence (1971)’
Phase 6
The greatly reduced confidence in the efficacy of Public Administration was reinforced by the disintegration of the intellectual foundations of the discipline along with its paradigms. The major theoretical concerns were as follows:
- application of Public Choice Theory to Public Administration seeking to assess the relative importance to both market and state as contending providers of public good.
- decentralization and democracy.
- inadequacy of Weberian notion of ‘rational bureaucracy’ in the post colonial states.
- performing partnerships.
- transparency of governance and open citizen-friendly administration via ‘citizen’s charter’ are now being advocated.
New Public Management (NPM) depends on public choice theory and managerialism. The 21st century Public Administration is advancing on two parallel paths: the first path continues to follow developments in the private business sector and the second path follows a line opposed to the business and economic trends, and tries to preserve and strengthen social, civilian and humane aspects.
Conclusion
Public Administration has developed from an offshoot of Political Science and Public Law to a subject that is gradually becoming truly interdisciplinary in its nature.