Search

Search

Fulltextof"PublicAdministration:anIdentity
crisis"
Seeotherformats
RETHINKINGTHEIDENTITYOF

PUBLICADMINISTRATION:

INTERDISCIPLINARYREFLECTIONS

ANDTHOUGHTSONMANAGERIAL

RECONSTRUCTION!

EranVigoda

DepartmentofPoliticalScience

UniversityofHaifa

Abstract

Publicadministrationisinastateofidentitydistress.Whereasformanyyearsthe
questionsofpoliticsandpolicywerethosewhichunconditionallyruledthediscipline,at
presentpublicadministrationasascience,art,andprofessionisundergoingfarreaching
transformations.Twomajorforcesofrectificationhaveincreasinglyaugmentedthe
conservativeonestocreateamoreinterdisciplinaryorientationofthefield.Theseare
culturalandsocialinputsandorganizational,managerial,andeconomicalinfluences.
Thismergerbeganmanyyearsago,butonlyrecentlyhasitattainedsufficientcritical
masstodirectthepublicsectorthroughvariousnecessarychanges.Thispaper
accordinglysuggestsarevisionoftheevolutionofpublicadministrationinthemodern
era,andarguesthatinterdisciplinaryreflectionsmaybebeneficialforthehealthy
developmentofthefieldintheyearstocome.Basedonrelevantliteraturethepaper
explainshowamultilevel,multimethod,andmultisystemapproachmayrevitalizeour
understandingofascholarlydomainthatiscurrentlyinastateofsomeperplexityandin
searchofthewayforward

Introduction

Theworldofgovernmentandpublicadministrationhastraveledfarsincetheearly
daysofitsstrugglefordisciplinaryindependence.Lately,therehasbeentalkoftheadvent
ofanewspiritinthepublicsector,oratleastexpectationsofitscoming.Somesaythatsuch

aspiritisalreadyhere.Othersaverwearewitnessingonlythetipofchange.Theworldwide
globalizationprocesssupportedbystrongerorientationstowardsopenmarkets,open
highwaysofinformation,growinglevelsoforganizationallearningandinterdisciplinarityin
thesocialscienceshavealsomadetheirimpactonthestudyofourbureaucracies.Yetbyall
definitionspublicadministrationinthebeginningofthe2000sstilllacksthesenseof
identitythatotherfieldsofthesocialscienceshaslongsinceobtained.Inotherwords,the

Pleaseaddressallcommentsto:Dr.EranVigoda,DepartmentcfPoliticalScience,Universityof
Haifa,Haifa31905Israel,eranv@poli.haifa.ac.il.ThepaperispartiallybasedonVigodaE.(2002).

PublicAdministration:AnInterdisciplinaryCriticalAnalysis.NewYork;MarcelDekker.Copyrights

withPermission.

PublicAdministration&Management:
AnInteractiveJournal
8,1,2003,pp.122

fieldislookingbackanddownintoitsindividuality,searchingfororientationsandsigns
thatcandirectitonitswayforward.Today,publicadministrationisalreadyverydifferent
fromwhatitusedtobeforty,thirty,andeventwentyortenyearsago.Inthecomingyears
itisgoingtobeevenmoredifferent.

Thispaperisbasedonapreviousworkbytheauthor(Vigoda,2002).Ittriesto
portraittheuncertainidentityofpublicadministrationandpossibledevelopmentswaiting
ahead.Rethinkingthisidentityweshouldbeinterestedintwomainquestions:Which
scholarlygroundarewesteppingonwhenwetalkaboutpublicadministration?Whatisthe
legacyofthefieldinitscurrentphaseandwhatareitsambitionsforthefuture?Naturally,
thesequestionsraisemanyothers,forexample,howtoimprovegovernmentsactions;how
torevitalizepublicadministrationsservices;whetherbureaucraciesarerespondingto
economical/social/politicalchallengesandchangesahead,andwithwhattools;whatisthe
impactofahightechnologyenvironmentandtheinformationageonourpublicagencies;
howtoattainthe(im)possiblegoalofeffectiveintegrationbetweencitizensand
governmentsinanultradynamicsociety;andwhataretheimplicationsofsuchtransitions
fordemocraticgovernments,theirstability,andlegitimizationintheeyesofcitizens.Iargue
thatinordertoresolvethesequestionsoneshouldseekbetterscholarlyidentity,which
maybeacquiredthroughinterdisciplinaryanalysis.

Practically,suchananalysisneedstobepresentedgradually.Hence,Ifirst
suggestatheoreticalentryandrationalityforthemixtureofanalyticlevels,methods,and
viewpointsthatareproposedbythevariousmotherdisciplinesofpublicadministration.
MorespecificallyIfocusontherootsandfoundationsofpublicadministrationinboth
AmericanandNonAmericanculturesthatfurnishthebackgroundandterminologyforthe
disciplineinitsbasicframe,aswellasinitsmoreadvancedcomposition.Next,three
academicoriginsarediscussed,namely(1)policy,politics,andpoliticaleconomy,(2)
sociology,culture,andcommunityand(3)managementandorganizationalstudies.Each

representsaseparatelayerofinvestigation.Theclosingsectionsuggestsasynthesisand
lookstothefuture.Itattemptstoportrayareasandorientationsforthenewgenerationof
publicadministrationandforitswayforward.

ThedilemmaofindependenceandinterdisciplinarityinpubKc
administration

Formanyyearspublicadministrationhasstruggledforitsindependentpositionin
thesocialsciences.Whileinitsearlyyearsitwaspartofthemoreconservativefieldsof
Law,Politics,andEconomy,ithasbeendevelopedtodaytoauniquefield,independentin
manywaysbutstillenjoyingmutualcontributionsofotherdisciplinesinthesocial
sciences.Moreover,inthelastcenturyithasdevelopedatheoreticalbutalsoanimpressive
practicalagendathatcreatedremarkableachievementsindifferentways.Thepublicsector,
bothasascienceandasaprofessionisresponsibleformuchoftheseachievements.

Atthedawnofthenewmillennium,however,variousnewsocialproblemsstill
awaittheconsiderationandattentionofthestateanditsadministrativesystem.The
questionofindependencyofpublicadministrationasascienceseemstodaylessimportant
thaninthepast.Instead,therearemanycallstotakeadvantageofmultidisciplinary
orientationsinthesocialsciencesandtofindbetterwaystointegratetheminthecurrent

ethosofpublicadministration.Itisalsosuggestedthatsuchinterdisciplinaryideas,tools,
andmethodscanhelptoovercomesocialproblemsandcreateeffectiveremediesforthe
newtypeofstatemaladies.Interdisciplinarityisalsotranslatedintoiscooperation,
collaboration,andashareofinformationandknowledge.Themultilevel,multimethod,and
multisystemanalysiswithalooktowardsthefuturearethemainfrontiersofmodernpublic
administration.

Theinterdisciplinaryviewendeavorstoprovideaninsightintothecomplexityof
thefieldbycombiningdifferentlevelsofanalysisintoanintegralwhole,whichbetter
accordswithreality.Thisknowledgemaywellserveourunderstandingofhowthestate,
anditsexecutivebranches,ismanagedandoftheobstaclestobetterpublicperformance.
Animportanttaskistoilluminatecrossdisciplinaryprinciplesforgreatereffectivenessand
efficiencyofpublicmanagementinfuturegenerations,whenenvironmentalpressureswill
grow,togetherwithanincreaseincitizens'demandsandneeds.Aninterdisciplinary
approachtopublicadministrationmaythusbeofmeritforacontentiousfieldinastateof
rapidchange.Itmaystimulatenewandviablethinkingthatcanleadtoadditionalpositive
innovationintheoldtypeofbureaucracies.

Thecentralassumptionofthisessayisthatslowlyandgradually,butconstantly
andextensively,achangeisbeingnurturedinpublicsystemsandintheattitudesofpublic
managers,politicians,andcitizenstotheconservativeroleofpublicinstitutions.These
transformationscarrymanychallenges,aswellasrisks,thatcitizens,governments,an
administratorsofthefuturewillhavetoconfrontandaddress.Theyallrepresentnew
alternativesfortheevolutionofpublicadministrationasanart,perhapsalsoasascience
andasaprofession(Lynn,1996).Ourtask,asstemmingfromsuchaperspective,isto
understandbetterthechangesahead,whichhavethepotentialofbuildingbridgesintothe
futureofmoderndemocracies.Acoreassumption,aswillbedevelopedhere,isthatthis

goalcanbeachievedonlythroughcooperationamongthepublic,private,andthirdsector
organizationsthatcollaboratethroughmutualeffortsandcombinedknowledgeavailablein
alltherelevantsocialsciences.

Publicadministrationintransition

Theevolutionaryprocess

Thefoundationsofmodernpublicadministrationcanbediscernedthousandsof
yearsago,acrosscultures,andinvariousnationsaroundtheglobe.TheBiblementionsa
varietyofhierarchicalandmanagerialstructuresthatservedasprototypesforgovernance
ofgrowingpopulations.Ancientmethodsofpubliclabordistributionwereexpandedbythe
GreeksandtheRomanstocontrolvastconqueredlandsandmanypeoples.ThePersianand
OttomanempiresintheMiddleEast,likeIndiaandimperialChinaintheFarEast,andthe
Mesoamericaculturespavedthewayforpublicadministrationinthemodernage,wherein
EuropeanChristians,andlaterChristiansoftheNewWorld,wereintheascendant.

Allthese,aswellasothercultures,usedaremarkablysimilarsetofconcepts,
ideas,andmethodsforgoverningandadministratingpublicgoods,resources,andinterests.
Theyallemployedprofessionalsandexpertsfromavarietyofsocialfields.Theyallused

authorityandpowerasthecheapestcontrolsystemforindividuals,governmental
institutions,andprocesses.Allofthemfacedadministrativeproblemscloseintypeandin
naturetoproblemsofourowntimes:howtoachievebetterefficiency,effectiveness,and
economyingovernment,howtosatisfytheneedsofthepeople,andhowtosustainstable
politicalhegemonydespitethedivergentdemandsandneedsofsectorialgroups.Not
surprisingly,alltheaboveculturesandnationsalsousedsimilarmanagerialtoolsand
methodstosolveproblemsofthissort.Theyallused,fairlyeffectively,divisionofwork,
professionalism,centralizationanddecentralizationmechanisms,accumulationof
knowledge,coordinationofjobs,complexstaffingprocessesofemployees,longrange
planning,controllingforperformance,andsoon.Intuitively,onefeelsthatnothinghas
reallychangedinthemanagerialandadministrativeprocessofpublicorganizationsfor
centuries,possiblymillennia.Butthisfeelingisofcourseexaggerated.Somemajorchanges
havetakenplaceinrecentcenturiestocreateatotallydifferentenvironmentandnewrules,
towhichrulersandcitizensmustadhereandbywhichtheymustadjusttheiroperation.In
fact,anewkindofgoverninggamehastakenshape,inwhichpublicadministrationplaysa
centralrole.

Despitebasicsimilarities,thepublicadministrationofourtimesisentirelydifferent
frompublicservicesinthepast.Thesedifferencescanbesummarizedin7keypoints:

(1)Itislargerthaneverbefore,anditstillexpanding;

(2)Itismorecomplexthaninthepast,andbecomingincreasinglysobytheday;

(3)Ithasmanymoreresponsibilitiestocitizens,anditstillhastocopewith

increasingdemandsofthepeople.

(4)Itisacquiringmoreeligibilities,butmustrestrainitsoperationandadhereto
standardsofequity,justice,socialfairness,transparencyandaccountability.

(5)Modernpublicadministrationisconsideredasocialscience,aclassification
thatcarrieshighesteembutalsofirmobligationsandrigidconstraints.

(6)Formanyindividualswhodecidetobecomepublicservantsitisalsoa
professionandoccupationtowhichtheydedicatetheirlivesandcareers.

(7)Publicadministrationisoneofthehighlypowerfulinstitutionsinmodern
democracies.

Thus,itisevidentthatpublicadministrationofourtimewieldsconsiderablepower
andinfluenceinpolicyframing,policymaking,andpolicyimplementation.Henceitis
subjecttogrowingpressuresofpoliticalplayers,socialactors,managerialprofessionals,
andtheoveralleconomicmarket.
Aneclecticscience

Publicadministrationisaneclecticscience.Itwasborntowardstheendofthe19'
centurywhenthebusinessofthestatestartedtoattractsocialacademicattention.The
revolutionturningpublicadministrationintoanindependentscienceandprofessionis
traditionallyrelatedtotheinfluentialworkandvisionofWoodrowWilson(1887)andFrank
J.Goodnow(1900).Thesescholarswereamongthefirstwhoadvocatedtheautonomyof
thefieldasauniqueareaofsciencethatdrewsubstancefromseveralsources.Inthefirst
years,law,politicaltheoryofthestate,andseveral"hardsciences"suchasengineeringand
industrialrelationswerethemostfundamentalandinfluentialmotherdisciplines.Overtime,
thesefieldsstronglyinfluencedtheformationandtransitionofpublicadministrationbutthe
extentanddirectionoftheinfluencewerenotlinearorconsistent.

KettlandMilward(1996:7)arguedthattraditionalpublicadministration,as
advocatedbytheprogenitorsofthediscipline,consistedinthepoweroflaw.
Representativesofthepeoplemakethelawanddelegateresponsibilitytoprofessional
bureaucratstoexecuteitproperly.Highlyqualifiedbureaucrats,supportedbythebesttools
andresources,arethenexpectedtodischargethelawtothehighestprofessionalstandards,
whichinreturnproducesgoodandaccountablemanagerialresultsthatbestservethe
people.AccordingtoRosenbloom(1998),thelegalapproachviewspublicadministration
"asapplyingandenforcingthelawinconcretecircumstances"andis"infusedwithlegal
andadjudicatoryconcerns"(p.33).Thisapproachisderivedfromthreemajorinterrelated
sources:(1)administrativelaw,whichisthebodyoflawandregulationsthatcontrolgeneric
administrativeprocesses;(2)thejudicializationofpublicadministration,whichisthe
tendencyforadministrativeprocessestoresemblecourtroomprocedures;and(3)
constitutionallaw,whichredefinesavarietyofcitizens'rightsandliberties.Severallegal
definitionsarguethatpublicadministrationislawinactionandmainlyaregulativesystem,
whichis"governmenttellingcitizensandbusinesseswhattheymayandmaynotdo"
(Shafritz&Russell,1997:14).However,withtheyearsithasbecomeobviousthatlawin
itselfdoesnotmaintainsatisfactoryconditionsforqualitypublicsectorperformancesto

emerge.Constitutionalsystemsfurnishplatformsforhealthyperformanceofpublic
administration,butdonotaccountforitseffectivenessorefficiency.Putdifferently,good
lawsarenecessarybutnotsufficientconditionsforcreatingawellperformingpublic
service.Theyonlyhighlightthesignificanceofotherscholarlycontributions.

Onesuchimportantcontributioncamefromtheclassic"hardsciences"of
engineeringandindustrialrelations.Initsveryearlystagespublicadministrationwas
heavilyinfluencedbydramaticsocialforcesandlongrangedevelopmentsinthewestern
world.Theongoingindustrialrevolutionintheearly1900s,whichwasaccompaniedby
politicalreforms,higherdemocratization,andmoreconcernforthepeople'swelfare,needed
highlyqualifiednavigators.Thesewereengineers,industrialentrepreneurs,andtechnical
professionalswhoguidedbothmarketsandgovernmentsalongtheelusivepathsto
economicandsocialprosperity.Variousfieldsofengineering,thesubsequentevokingarea
ofindustrialstudies,andotherlinkeddisciplinessuchasstatisticalmethodsbecame
popularandcrucialforthedevelopmentofmanagementscienceingeneral,andwerealso
graduallyfoundusefulforpublicarenas.Thelinkbetweengeneralmanagementandpublic
administrationhasitsrootsintheunderstandingofcomplexorganizationsand
bureaucracies,whichhavemanysharedfeatures.Here,muchcontributionwasmadeinnon
AmericansocietiessuchGermany,France,andBritain.Infact,earlyAmericanpublic
administrationwasinfluencedbytheworksofvariousEuropean.Thus,thecurrentstateof
publicadministrationcannotbecoveredwithoutadequateunderstandingoftheseminal
worksbyMaxWeber(1947),HenryFayol(1925),LindelUrwick(1928),andothers.Their
ideasandtheoreticaldevelopmentofthefieldareconsideredtodayascorestonesforthe
emergenceofmodernpublicadministrationandmanagement.

Withtime,dramaticchangesoccurredinthenatureandorientationofgeneral
organizationaltheory,andinitsapplicationtopublicadministrationofmodernsocieties.A
majortransitionresultedfromtheexplorationbytheHawthornstudiesinthe1920sand
1930s,conductedbyawellknownindustrialpsychologistfromChicagoUniversity,Alton
Mayo.Abehavioralapparatuswasusedtodriveasecondrevolution,beyondthe
revolutionofitsoriginalemergence,whichswepttheyoungscienceintoitsfirststagesof

maturity.Today,trendsanddevelopmentsinthepublicsectorcannotbefullyunderstood
withoutadequateattentiontobehavioral,social,andculturalissues.Theseaspectsconjoin
withquestionsofpolicymakingandpolicyevaluation,aswellaswithmanagerial,
economic,andorganizationalcontents,bettertoilluminatepublicsystems.Thehumanand
socialsideofpublicorganizationsbecamecentralandcriticaltoallseekersofgreater
knowledgeandcomprehensionofthestate'soperation.Peopleandgroupswereplacedat
theheartofthediscussiononorganizationaldevelopmentandmanagerialmethods.The
humansideoforganizationswasmadeanorganicpartoftheartofadministration.Still
todayitisanindispensablefacetofthecraftofbureaucracy.Allwhoareinterestedinthe
healthyfutureandsoundprogressofpublicorganizationsandservicesbothasascience
andasaprofessionhavetoincorporatehumanisticviewswellintheirbasicmanagerial
ideology.

However,majortransitionsstilllayahead.Internationalconflictsduringthe1930s
andthe1940swroughtimmensechangesinnationalideologyanddemocraticperspectives
inmanywesternsocieties.Consequently,publicadministrationandpublicpolicyhadtobe

transformedaswell.DuringtheSecondWorldWartheoreticalideasweremassively
supportedbyadvancedtechnologyandhigherstandardsofindustrialization.Thesewere
pioneeredbyprofessionalmanagersandaccompaniedbynewmanagerialtheories.
Ironically,thetwoworldwarsservedasfacilitatorsofmanagerialchangeaswellas
acceleratorsandagentsoffuturedevelopmentsandreformsinthepublicsector.The
politicalleadersandsocialmovementsofthevictoriousdemocracieswereconvincedthat
thetimehadcomeforextensivereformsinthemanagementofwesternstates.Theassumed
correlationofsocialandeconomicconditionswithpoliticalstabilityandorderpropelled
someofthemoremassiveeconomicprogramsinwhichthestatetookanactivepart.The
rehabilitationofwarravagedEuropeinvolvedgovernmentaleffortsandinternationalaid,
mostofitfromtheUnitedStates.Majorattentionwasdedicatedtothecreationofbetter
servicesforthepeople,longrangeplanning,andhighperformancepublicinstitutions
capableofdeliveringqualitypublicgoodstogrowingnumbersofcitizens.Tobuildbetter
societieswasthegoal.Alargerandmoreproductivepublicsectorwasthetool.

InmanyrespectstheUtopianvisionofabettersocietygeneratedbythepostwar
politiciansandadministratorsinthe1940sand1950sinexorablycrumbledandfellduringthe
1960sand1970s.Asizablenumberofgovernmentsinthewesternworldcouldnotdeliverto
thepeoplemanyofthesocialpromisestheyhadmade.Thechallengeofcreatinganew
society,freeofcrimeandpoverty,highlyeducatedandmorallysuperior,healthierandsafer
thaneverbefore,remainedanunreachablegoal.Soduringthe1970sand1980s,citizens'
trustandconfidenceingovernment,andinpublicadministrationasaprofessionalagentof
government,sufferedasignificantdecline.Thepublicnolongerbelievedthatgovernments
andpublicservicescouldbringrelieftothosewhoneededhelp,andthatnopublicplanning
wasgoodenoughtocompetewithnaturalsocialandmarketforces.Thepromisesofmodern
administration,runninganeffectivepublicpolicy,seemedlikeabrokendream.Political
changestookplaceinmostwesternstates,largelystemmingfromdeepfrustrationbythe
publicanddisapprovalofgovernmentpolicies.Bytheendofthe20'centurythecrisesin
publicorganizationsandmistrustofadministratorswereviewedbothasapolicyand
managerialfailure(Rainey,1990).Inaddition,thispracticaluncertaintyanddisappointment
withgovernmentsandtheirpublicadministrationauthoritiesnaturallydiffusedintothe
academiccommunity.Theoreticalideasforpolicyreformsinvarioussocialfieldsthatonce
seemedthekeytoremedyingillnessesindemocracieshaveprovenunsuccessful.Within

thelastdecadethesearchfornewideasandsolutionsforsuchproblemshasreachedits
peak,aspremisesoriginallyrootedinbusinessmanagementhavebecomeincreasingly
adjustedandappliedtotiepublicsector.Amongtheseventuresarereengineering
bureaucracies(HammerandChampy,1994),applyingbenchmarkingstrategytopublic
services(Camp,1998),reinventinggovernment(OsborneandGaebler,1992),andthemost
influentialmovementofNewPublicManagement(NPM:Lynn,1998;StewartandRanson,
1994).Thesearereceivinggrowingattentionaccompaniedbylargemeasuresofskepticism
andcriticism.

Transformationsintheacademicrealm

Throughoutthoseyearspublicadministrationasanacademicfieldwasalsoin
transition.Today,manyexamplesexistinuniversitiesofindependentpublicadministration
units;someoperateasschoolsandsomeasfreestandingfaculties.Butinatleastanequal

numberofuniversities,publicadministrationprogramsonalllevelsareonlypartoflarger
unitssuchasPoliticalSciencedepartments.BusinessandManagementschools,oreven
PublicAffairsschools.Thisdisciplinaryschizophreniacertainlyyieldsasciencethatis
morecomplexandheterogeneous,butalsomorechallengingandfullofpromise.

Thescientificbackgroundandidentityofpublicadministrationinthelate1990s
andearly2000sisstillnotstableandhasnotovercomeitschildhoodailments.Onthe
contrary.Identityconflictshaveonlyintensifiedwiththeyears.Some30yearsago,Waldo
(1968)notedthatongoingtransformationsinpublicadministrationreflectedanidentity
crisisofascienceinformation.DuringthelastthreedecadesWaldo'sdiagnosticsonpublic
administrationasasciencestrugglingwithaperniciousidentityproblemhasnotchanged
much.Theevolutionofalternativesubdisciplinesinsideandaroundthefield(e.g.,policy
studies,publicpersonnelmanagement,informationmanagement,etc.)carriedpromisesbut
alsorisksforitspositionandroleasacentralfieldofsocialstudy.Asrecentlynotedby
Peters(1996),modernpublicadministrationgreatlyreflectslackofselfconfidencebothasa
scienceandasaprofession.Thislackisexpressedinmanyways,themostsignificantbeing
incapacitytoguidegovernmentsthroughasafecircuitofpublicpolicychange.Muchof
theaccumulatedwisdominthescienceofpublicadministrationhasbeenobtainedthrough
socialexperiments,thecommissionofpolicyerrors,andsometimesevenlearningfromthem
aboutbetterwaystoservethepeople.Butmistakescostmoney,muchmoney,moneyfrom
allofus,thetaxpayers.Likegoodcustomersinaneighborhoodsupermarket,citizens
shouldandhavebecomeawareoftheservicestheydeserve,ofthehighpricestheyare
askedtopay,andofgovernmentalactionsthatshouldbetakentoproduceusefulchanges.
Demandsforbetteroperationaregenerallyaimedatgovernments,buttheyshouldbe,and
are,alsotargetedatthescienceandatacademia.Sciencehasthepotentialofexploringnew
knowledge,generatingbetterexplanationsforrelevantadministrativeproblems,applying
sophisticatedandusefulprofessionalmethods,andmostimportantlydirectingallavailable
resourcestoproducesuccessfulandpracticalrecommendationsforprofessionals.Itsprime
goalistodesignacomprehensivetheoreticalviewofpublicsystemsthatisclear,highly
efficient,effective,thrifty,andsociallyorientedatthesametime.Thiscannotbeachieved
withoutextensiveunderstandingofthediversity,complexity,andinterdisciplinarityofthe
scienceofpublicadministration.

Thecontributionofaninterdisciphnaryviewtopublicadministrationidentity

Inmanywaysthepersistentpublicmistrastofgovernmentalservicesand
institutions,togetherwiththemarkedinstabilityofpublicadministrationasascience,
inspiredusinthepresentventure.Thefragilestatusofthetheoryofpublicadministration
isaportofdepartureforadifferentkindofdiscussion,whichisbroaderandmulti
perceptional.Ourcoreargumentisthatonecanfindmanywaystodepicttheadministrative
system,itsfunctionality,anditsrelationshipwiththepublic.Buttheidentitycrisisofpublic
administrationcannotbesolveduntilmanyapproachesarecombinedandcoalesceto
explaintheverybasicconstructsthatmodernsocietiesencounteratthestartofthenew
century.Aforemostassumptionofthispaperisthatonlymutualeffortsandquality
combinationofcriticalknowledgefromavarietyofsocialdisciplinesandmethodscanyield
arealopportunityforovercomingpublicadministration'spostchildhoodproblems.Sucha
crisisofidentity,whichhasexistedformorethanacenturynow,carriesrisks,butalso
promises,whichmustbewellisolated,assessed,analyzed,andonlythenfulfilled.The

translationofscienceintooperativeactsbygovernmentmustrelyonsuchwisdom,which
canbesufficientlyaccumulatedfromvarioussocialbranches.

Interdisciplinaryheredity

Thedesiredcomprehensiveunderstandingofpublicadministration,asportrayed
earlier,shouldrelyontheaccumulatedwisdomandknowledgeofitssisterdisciplines(and
notnecessarilytheconventionalmotherdisciplines)inthesocialsciences.Unfortunately,
sofarmostwritingonpublicsystemshasadoptedaunidimensionalviewpoint.Public
administrationwasfrequentlyunderstoodthroughtheeyesofpolicyanalystsorpolitical
scientists.Alternativelyitwasconsideredaspecificfieldofmanagementscienceorasan
organizationalstudiesdomain.Whiletherootsoftheadministrativeprocessaredefinitely,
andwithmuchjustification,identifiedwithpoliticalscience,policystudies,andmanagerial
constructsofpublicinstitutions,itwouldbegreatlyinerrortopointsolelytothesearenas
inportrayingthedomainandnatureofpublicadministration.Anintegrativeapproachhas
muchmeritandpotentialinthiscase,anditmustbewelldevelopedtoconformtothe
complexrealityofservingthepublic.

MorespecificallyIarguethattheadministrativescienceisadisciplineintransition
thatinvolvespolitics,butnotonlypolitics.Itdealswithpolicy,butreachesmuchfarther
anddeeperthanpolicyquestions.Itincorporatessociologicalandculturalaspectsthat
changerapidlyinamasscommunicativeglobalworld,butitgoesevenbeyondthese
issues.Itdealswithpeopleasworkers,ascitizens,asclients,andasconsumers,asleaders
andmanagers,aswellaswithavarietyofotherhumanconstructsthatfuseintoaunique
branchofknowledge.Amultidisciplinaryapproachisevidentlyrequiredtoexplainbetter
whateveryscholaralreadyknowsfromhisorherpersonalperspective:thatthetruthabout
publicadministrationhasmanyfacesandnomonopolyexistsanylongeronthediscipline's
statusandorientations.

InlightoftheaboveIidentifythreemaindisciplinesthatservetodayascore
sourcesofknowledgeinthestudyofpublicadministration.

(1)Policyanalysis,Politicalscience,andPoliticalEconomy;

(2)Sociology,Culturalstudies,andCommunitystudies;

(3)ManagementandOrganizationalstudies;

Policy,Politics,andPoliticalEconomy

ThepoliticalapproachtopublicadministrationwasdepictedbyRosenbloom
(1998)asstressingthevaluesofrepresentativeness,politicalresponsiveness,and
accountabilitytothecitizenrythroughelectedofficials.Thesevaluesareconsidered
necessaryrequirementsofdemocracy,andtheymustbeincorporatedintoallaspectsof
govemmentandadministration.Wallace(1978)arguedthatultimatelypublicadministration
isaprobleminpoliticaltheory.Itdealswiththeresponsivenessofadministrativeagencies
andbureaucraciestotheelectedofficials,andthroughthem,tothecitizensthemselves.
ShafritzandRussell(1997)provideseveralpoliticsorienteddefinitionsofpublic

administration:itiswhatgovernmentdoes(ordoesnotdo),itisaphaseinthe
policymakingcycle,itisaprimetoolforimplementingthepublicinterest,anditdoes
collectivelywhatcannotbedonesowellindividually(pp.613).Henceitisimpossibleto
conductapoliticsfreediscussionofpublicadministration.Thispoliticaldebateinpublic
administrationisalsoheavilyinfluencedbythesubfieldofpoliticaleconomy.Questionsof
budgetingandfinancingthepublicsector(Wildavsky,1984)aswellasbringingmore
economicalrationalitytodecisionmakingprocessesusuallyconflictwithpolitical
considerations(Jackson&Mcleod,1982).Howevertheyalsoputthemundereconomical
restraintsandenhance"checksandbalances"toasystemmostlymonitoredandcontrolled
bypoliticians,politicalparties,andotherfederalornationalinstitutions,ratherthan
professionalsandpractitioners.

Yet,politicsisdefinitelytheheartofpublicadministrationprocesses.Politics
focusesoncitizensasmembersofgroupsoronhighlyinstitutionalizedorganizationsthat
soundthepublic'svoicebeforepoliticalofficialsandcivilservants.Thepoliticsapproach
topublicadministrationinvolvesstrategiesofnegotiatingandmaneuveringamongpolitical
parties,publicopinion,andbureaucracies.Itinvolvesanincrementalchangeinsociety,
whichreliesonopendebate,alegitimatepowerstruggle,distributionandredistributionof
nationalresourcesandbudgets,andaheavybodyoflegislationandlawtoregulatethese
processes.Perhapsthemostobviouslinkagebetweenpoliticsandpublicadministration
stemsfrompolicymakingandpolicyimplementationprocesses.Itisnaivetodistinguish
politicalsystemsfromprofessionaladministrationsystemsinregardtopublicpolicy.As
Rosenbloom(1998:13)suggested,"publicadministrators'involvementinthepublicpolicy
cyclemakespoliticsfarmoresalientinthepublicsectorthaninprivateenterprise.Public
administratorsareperforcerequiredtobuildandmaintainpoliticalsupportforthepolicies
andprogramstheyimplement.Theymusttrytoconvincemembersofthelegislature,chief
executives,politicalappointees,interestgroups,privateindividuals,andthepublicatlarge
thattheiractivitiesandpoliciesaredesirableandresponsive".

Thetheoreticalcontributionofpoliticalsciencetothestudyofpublic
administrationisthereforemultifaceted.Itinvokesbetterunderstandingofthepower
relationsandinfluencedynamicsthattakeplaceinsideandamongbureaucracies(Pfeffer,
1992)anddeterminetheiroperativefunctionaswellasoutcomes.Italsoemploysarather
vastknowledgefromeconomicsandrationalthinking.Partypoliticsacknowledgesthatthe
investigationofpressureandinterestgroups,andthebetterunderstandingofconflict
relationshipsamongvariousplayersofthestate,areusedtobuildmodelsofdecision
makingandpolicydeterminationthatarerationalandrealistic.Inaddition,political

10

psychologyisimplementedmorethoroughlytoexplorepersonalitytraitsofpoliticalleaders
aswellaspublicservants.Forthesamereasons,budgetarystudiesandpolicyanalysis
methodsareanintegralfacetofthepoliticalapproach,whichassumeslimitedrationalityas
wellashighconstraintsoftimeandresourcesontheadministrativeprocess.

Fromasomewhatdifferentperspective,EUwood(1996:p.51)arguedthatpolitical

sciencehassimultaneouslyeverythingandlittletoofferpublicmanagementscholars,hence
alsopublicadministrationscholars.Everything,becausebothfieldsdealwithpolitical
behavior,processes,andinstitutions.Little,becausepoliticalsciencedealsonlywiththe
constraintsforcedontheadministrativeprocesswithnopracticalcontributiontothe
managerialimprovementofpublicsystems.Ellwoodfurtherconcursthatbothfieldsrelyon
otheracademicdisciplines,employingtechniquesofanthropology,economics,game
theory,historiography,psychology,andsocialpsychology,aswellassociology.Inline
withthisitwouldbeonlynaturaltoconcludethattherelationshipbetweenpoliticalscience
andpublicadministrationisdescribedasanonagain,offagainromance.Kettl(1993,p.409)
suggestedthat"theimportanceofadministrationlayattheverycoreofthecreationofthe
AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation...whenfiveofthefirstelevenpresidentsofthe
associationcamefrompublicadministration"andplayedamajorroleinframingthe
discipline.AsEllwoodputsit,withtheyears,publicadministrationbecamepublicbutalso
administration.Itshifteditsfocustoamorepracticalandclientserviceorientation,which
necessarilyincorporatedknowledgefromothersocialdisciplineslikepersonnel
management,organizationalbehavior,accounting,budgeting,andsoforth.The
methodologicalcontributionofapoliticalapproachtopublicadministrationstudiesisalso
meaningful.Hereamacroanalysisisnecessaryifoneseeksanunderstandingofthe
operationoflargebureaucraciesandtheircoexistencewithpoliticalplayers.Apolitical
approachdeliversthesegoodsbymeansofcomparativestudies,policyevaluation
methods,rationalchoicencdels,andsimulations,aswellascontentanalysistechniques
andothertoolsusefulforobservationofthepoliticalsphere.

Sociology,Culture,andCommunity

Studyingpublicadministrationisalsoasocialissue.Thus,anotherapproachthat
ishighlyrelevanttotheunderstandingofpublicadministrationbodiesandprocessesrests
onasociologicalapparatus.Ithasaverycloserelationshipwiththepoliticalapproach,soit
issometimesdefinedasasociopoliticalviewofpublicsystemsorasastudyofpolitical
culture(Shafritz&Russell,1997:76).Yetitscoreprospectsarebeyondthepoliticalcontext.
Thevoiceofsocietyhasaspecialroleinthestudyofpublicadministrationarenasnotonly
fordemocraticandpoliticalreasonsbutalsobecauseofitsfundamentalimpactoninformal
constructsofrealitysuchastradition,socialnormsandvalues,ethics,lifestyle,work
standards,andotherhumanculturalinteractionsthatarenotnecessarilypolitical.

Thetheoreticalcontributionofasociologicalandculturalapproachtopublic
administrationconsistsofseveralelements.Anessentialdistinctionmustbedrawn
betweeninsideandoutsideculturalenvironments.Anoutsideculturalsphereincorporates
informalactivitiesandbehaviorsofsmallgroupsaswellasoflargersocialunitswhich
interactwiththeadministrativesystem.Includedinthiscategoryarecustomers'groups,
privateorganizations,notforprofitvolunteeringorganizations,andcitizensatlarge.
Considerableattentionhasbeenturnedtocommunitiesandtotheideaofcommunitarianism

11

(Etzioni1994;1995)aswellastotheemergenceofthethirdsectorasrapidlychanging

conventionalstructuresandbeliefsinmodernsocieties(Gidron,Kramer,andSalamon,
1992).Aninsideculturalenvironmentisrelatedtointernalorganizationaldynamicsandto
thebehaviorsofpeopleasworkgroups.Thus,itissometimestermedorganizationalculture,
ororganizationalclimate(Schein,1985).Liketheoutsideorganizationalenvironment,ithas
someobservableconstructsbutitmostlyexpressesmanycovertphases.Inmanyways,
"cultureistotheorganizationwhatpersonalityistotheindividualahidden,yetunifying
themethatprovidesmeaning,directionandmobilization"(Kilmannetal.,1985).Itincludes
basicassumptionsastowhatisrightandwhatiswrongforacertainorganizational
community,normsandbeliefsofemployees,unseensocialrulesandacceptedcodesof
behavior,aswellastradition,language,dress,andceremonieswithcommonmeaningtoall
organizationalmembers.Allthesedistinguish"us"from"them",promotegroup
cohesiveness,andimprovecommoninterests.

Severalsociologicalsourcescanbeeffectiveinanalyzingpublicadministration
dynamics.Firstisgrouptheory,whichisalsocloselyrelatedtothestudyofleadersand
leadership.Secondareethnicstudies,whichconcentrateonminoritiesandracequestions
suchasequity,fairdistributionofpublicgoods,andintegrationinproductivepublic
activity.Thirdiscommunicationandthetechnologicalinformationrevolution,whichhave
hadaradicaleffectonsociety,publicpolicy,andpublicadministrationunitsandstructure.
Informationnetworksandcommunicationhavebecomeanimmanentfeatureofthecultural
investigationofbureaucracies.Formanyyearsaplausibleapproachinmanagementscience
andinthestudyofpublicadministrationcalledfortheformulationofauniversaltheoryin
thefield,onethatisculturefreeandapplicableacrossallnations.Withthepassageoftime
andwithgianttechnologicaldevelopmentsthisperceptionbecameevermoreanachronistic.

Today,thegoalofauniversaladministrativeparadigmishardlyachievable.An
alternativeviewpointismorebalancedandcontingent.Itarguesthatbasicsimilaritiesdo
existbetweenpublicorganizationsandpublicadministrationmechanisms,butatthesame
timeintraorganizationalandextraorganizationalculturefulfillsamajormediatingrole.
Cultureinitsbroadcontextconstantlyaffectstheoperationofbureaucraciesaswellas
politicalsystemsthatinteractwiththem.ExampleslikeTheoryZofW.Ouchi(1981)and
lessonsfromamorerecentChineseandeastEuropeanexperiencesstimulatedthescientific
communityandinitiatedcultureorientedventuresingeneralmanagementinquiry
(Hofstede,1980).Theyespeciallypromotedtheinvestigationofworkvaluesandculture
orientedmanagementinprivatebutalsoinpublicarenas.Manyscholarsbecameconvinced
ofthenecessityofincorporatingsocialandculturalvariablesascoreelementsinthe
administrativeanalysisofpublicarenas.Asociologicalandculturalapproachtopublic
administrationalsomadeanimportantmethodologicalcontribution.Itinitiatedculture
focusedsurveysofindividualsandgroupswhoworkinthepublicsectororofcitizenswho
receiveservicesandgoods.Culturefocusedobservationsandanalysespossessthemerit
ofbeingsensitivetopeople's(ascitizensoremployees)norms,values,traditions,and
dispositions,andsometimestheyoverlapotherpoliticsandpolicyorientedstudiesthe
bettertoexploredynamicsinpublicorganizations.

Finally,severalethicalconsiderationsshouldbeincludedunderanysociological
understandingofthepublicsector.Ethicaldilemmasarefrequentinpublicadministration


12

andrelatetoculturalaspects,tonorms,andmostimportantlytotheindividualbehaviourof
publicservants.Forexample,handinhandwithgovernmentaloperation,questionsof
ethicalstandards,integrity,fairandequaltreatmenttoclients,orappropriatecriteriafor
rewardstopublicservantsbecomemorerelevant.Today,publicservicesinEuropeare
widerthaneverbefore(Gladstone,1995;DeLeon,1996).Asaresult,publicservantsare
takingcareofgrowingbudgets.Theycontrolthetransferenceofmorecapitaltoandfrom
thestatetreasury.Thisexposesmanyofthemtoethicaldilemmasastohowtoproperly
manage,distributeandredistributeeconomicalwealth.Otherethicaldifficultiesariseasa
resultoftheinstabilitybetweenbusinessandsocialrequirementsinthepublicenvironment.
Forexample,whenthecostofcertainmedicineistoohighforcitizenstopurchase,should
thestatetakeresponsibilityandhelpthem?Whenstateprisonsarefullofconvicted
prisoners,shouldthestatereleasesomeofthemtocreatemoreplacesforothers?
Respondingtosuchmoralissuesisdifficult.However,publicpolicywhichneglects
considerationsofethics,equaltreatmentofthepublic,orbasicjusticeandfairnessamong
itsmembersisinitiatingaselfdestructiveprocesswhichmaydamageitsfunctioninginthe
longrun(Wilenski,1980).

ManagementandOrganizationstudies

Thethirdcorestoneofpublicadministrationisbasedonknowledgefrom
managementandorganizationalsciences.Amanagerialdefinitionofpublicadministration
proclaimsthatitistheexecutivefunctioningovernmentoramanagementspecialtyapplied
inpublicsystems(ShafritzandRussell,1997:1923).Althoughpublicsectormanagementis
distinguishedfromprivatesectormanagement,inmanywaysthetwosystemssharea
surprisinglybroadareaofsimilarities(Rainey,1990).Formanyyears,differencesstemmed
fromthenatureofserviceseachsectorcustomarilyprovided,fromdiversestructuresand
functions,butmainlyfromdiscrepanciesintheenvironment.However,whenthe
environmentstartedrapidlytochange,organizationshadtochangeaswell.Modern
societieshavebecomemorecomplex,flexible,anddynamic.Cultural,industrial,
technological,economic,andpoliticalenvironmentsoforganizationshaveundergonerapid
transformationsthatarestillinprogresstoday.Ontheonehand,publicandprivate
organizationshavetoadjustandcomplywithsimilarchangesintheenvironmentto
safeguardtheirinterestsandexistence.Butontheotherhand,thestartingpointofpublic
organizationsisfarinferiorandurgentlycallsforrethinkingandreinventing(Osborneand
Gaebler,1992).

Conventionalwisdomacceptedaclassicassumptionregardingtherelativelystable
andunshakablestructureofpublicorganizations.DrawingontheWeberianapproach,
hardlyanyonedisputedtheneedforlargebureaucraciesinmoderndemocracies.Moreover,
theadvantagesanddisadvantagesoflargebureaucracieswerewellknownamong
academicsandpractitioners.Aweightybureaucracywasconsideredanaxiomofpublic
administration.Onlywiththeemergenceofnewmanagementtrendsinoldbureaucracywere
thesebasicassumptionsquestioned.Forexample,KettlandMilward(1996)statedthat
managementinthepublicsectormatters.Itmattersbecausecitizens'demandsincreaseand
becausethestandardsofperformanceexpectedfromgovernmentsarehigherthanever

before.Performanceisrelatedinthemindsofpeopleandinscientificstudiestoqualityof
management,qualityofmanagers,andtheadministrativeprocessbetweenthem.
Accordingly,ithasmuchtodowiththehumanaspectsofadministration.Perhapsthis

13

perceptionhasledtosomerecentdevelopmentsinpublicadministration,makingitclient
orientedandmorebusinesslike.Scholarsfrequentlydefinetheseshiftsastheprincipal
changeinpublicadministrationanditstransitionintoarevisedfieldofstudynamedpublic
management.

Currenttrends:Apublicmanagerialreform?

Whatisthefutureofmodernpublicadministrationandwhatnewfrontiersare
awaitingahead?Thewisdomofmanagingstatesandcommunitiesinthe21^'centuryrelies
onmanifolddisciplinesandniiltiplesourcesofknowledge.Theinformationeraandthe
immensetechnologicaladvancementwithwhichournationsstrugglenecessarilycreate
higherlevelsofaccessibility,availability,andtransparencytothepublic.Theemergenceof
egovernmentisnomoreafantasticdreambutblatantreality.Publicadministrationin
Americaandintheworldismovingthroughreformsandchangesthatareaimedat
downsizing,privatization,debureaucratization,higherprofessionalmanagerialsim,and
aboveallstrictdedicationandaspirationstobecomeabetter"science"byimproving
measurementtoolsandadheringwithpositivismandempiricism.

Sincetheearly1980smuchworkhasbeenconductedinpublicadministration
theoryandpracticethatclaimedtogobeyondtheconservativeapproachinthefield.This
"liberalization"ofpublicadministrationisrecognizedtodayasthe"NewPublic
Management"(NPM)trend.Theselfidentityproblemofpublicadministrationwasgreatly
aggravatedbythelaunchingoftheideaofNPM.AsnotedbyKettlandMilward(1996:vii),
"publicmanagementisneithertraditionalpublicadministrationnorpolicyanalysissinceit
borrowsheavilyfromavarietyofdisciplinesandmethodologicalapproaches".Mainly
drawingontheexperienceofthebusiness/industrial/privatesector,scholarshave
suggestedtakingamoredemandingattitudetothedynamics,activity,andproductivityof
publicorganizations.However,"competingacademicdisciplinesdueledtoestablish
bridgeheadsor,worse,virtuallyignoredeachotherastheydevelopedparalleltrackson
relatedproblems"(p.5).Consequently,acrossfertilization,whichcouldhaveaccelerated
learningandimprovedperformanceofpublicsystems,wasdelayed.

WhataretherootsofNPM,andinwhatwayisitactuallyanewarenainthestudy
ofthepublicsector?Severaltheoreticalfoundations,aswellaspracticalfactors,cananswer
thesequestions.Thefirst,andprobablythedeepestsourceofNPMemergesfromthe
distinctionbetweentwoproximatetermsorfieldsofresearch:administrationand
management.Asnotedearlier,sincethelate1880sthemonopolyonthetermadministration
hasbeenheldbypoliticalscientists.ScholarslikeGoodnowandWilsonwerethosewho
perceivedpublicadministrationasaseparateanduniquedisciplinethatshouldconsistof
independenttheory,practicalskills,andmethods.However,thetermmanagementreferred

toamoregeneralarena,usedbyallsocialscientistsandmainlybythosewhopracticeand
advancetheoryinorganizationalpsychologyandbusinessstudies.Consequently,
conservativeadministrationsciencetendstoanalyzetheoperationoflargebureaucratic
systemsaswellasothergovernmentalprocessesaimedatpolicyimplementation.
Management,ontheotherhand,referstothegeneralpracticeofempoweringpeopleand
groupsinvarioussocialenvironmentsandinhandlingmultipleorganizationalresourcesto
maximizeefficiencyandeffectivenessintheprocessofproducinggoodsorservices.

14

NPMhasindeedbecomeextremelypopularinthetheoryandpracticeof
contemporarypublicadministration.Still,itisnotclearifwecandefineitasalongrange
revolutioninpublicadministrationtheory.SomewillsaythatNPMhasonlyrevivedanold
spiritofmanagerialismandapplieditinthepublicsector.Otherswillarguethatthisinitself
hasbeenamomentouscontributiontopublicadministrationasadisciplineindecline.
RelyingonanextensivesurveyofpublicmanagementresearchinAmerica,Garsonand
Overman(1983:275)arguedthatthisincreasingpopularitywasduetothemorevirile
connotationofthetermmanagementthanadministration.Overtheyears,agrowingnumber
ofpoliticalscientistscametoperceivepublicadministrationasanoldanddeclining
discipline.Itwasunabletoprovidethepublicwithadequatepracticalanswerstoits
demands,andmoreoveritleftthetheoreticianswithepidemicsocialdilemmasawaiting
exploration.Interestingevidenceofthisprocesscouldbefoundinmanyschoolsofpublic
administrationthatduringthe1980sand1990sdecidedtobecomeschoolsofpublic
management.Lookingforalternativeideas,managementtheorywasproposedasthesource
foranewandrefreshingperspective.Itwassuggestedthatpublicmanagementratherthan
publicadministrationcouldcontributetoanewunderstandingofhowtorunthe
governmentmoreefficiently,hencetosurmountsomeofitspandemicailments.

Thus,PerryandKraemer(1983)statedthatagreaterimpactofnewideasand
methodsfromthefieldofpublicmanagementontheadministrativesciencewasessential
andnatural.Itreflectedaspecialfocusofmodernpublicadministrationthatwasnottobe
ignored.Rainey(1990:157)claimedthatthisprocesswasaresultofthegrowing
unpopularityofgovernmentduringthe1960sand1970s.Ott,Hyde,andShafritz(1991:1)
alsostatedthatpublicmanagementwasamajorsegmentofthebroaderfieldofpublic
administrationsinceitfocusedontheprofessionandonthepublicmanagerasa
practitionerofthatprofession.Furthermore,itemphasizedwellacceptedmanagerialtools,
techniques,knowledge,andskillsthatcouldbeusedtoturnideasandpolicyintoa
(successful)programofaction.

DuringthelasttwodecadesmanydefinitionshavebeensuggestedforNPM.Yet
nothingseemswrongwiththerelativelyoldperceptionofGarsonandOverman(1983:278),
whodefineditas"awinterdisciplinarystudyofthegenericaspectsofadministration...a
blendoftheplanning,organizing,andcontrollingfunctionsofmanagementwiththe
managementofhuman,financial,physical,informationandpoliticalresources".As
furtherdiscussedbyotherscholars(e.g.,Lynn,1996:3839),sixdifferencesexistbetween
publicadministrationandpublicmanagementthatmaketheformeranewfieldofstudyand

practice.Theseare(1)theinclusionofgeneralmanagementfunctionssuchasplanning,
organizing,control,andevaluationinlieuofdiscussionofsocialvaluesandconflictsof
bureaucracyanddemocracy;(2)aninstrumentalorientationfavoringcriteriaofeconomy
andefficiencyinlieuofequity,responsiveness,orpoliticalsalience;(3)apragmaticfocus
onmidlevelmanagersinlieuoftheperspectiveofpoliticalorpolicyelites;(4)atendencyto
considermanagementasgeneric,oratleasttominimizethedifferencesbetweenpublicand
privatesectorsinlieuofaccentuatingthem;(5)asingularfocusontheorganization,with
externalrelationstreatedinthesamerationalmannerasinternaloperationsinlieuofafocus
onlaws,institutions,andpoliticalbureaucraticprocesses;(6)astrongphilosophicallink
withthescientificmanagementtraditioninlieuofclosetiestopoliticalscienceorsociology.

15

WhiletheemergenceofNPMbfrequentlyrelatedtotheincreasingimpactof
positivistbehavioralscienceonthestudyofpoliticsandgovernment(e.g.,Lynn,1996:56),
thepracticalaspectofthisprocessshouldalsobeconsidered.Practicalpublicmanagers
(Golembiewski,1995),swellaspoliticalscientists,willrefertothedifficultiesinpolicy
makingandpolicyimplementationwhichfacedmanywesternsocietiesinEurope,America,
andelsewhereduringthe1970s.Thesepracticaldifficultiesareviewedtodayasan
importanttriggerfortheevolutionofNPM.ReviewingtworecentbooksonNPM(Aucoin,
1995;Boston,Martin,Pallot,andWalsh,1996),Khademian(1998:269)arguesthatAmerican
andWestminsteradvocatesofthefieldfindcommongroundinexplainingwhysuch
reformsarenecessary.Theproblemofaninflexiblebureaucracythatoftencouldnot
respondefficientlyandpromptlytothepublicneedsconflictedwithsomebasicdemocratic
principlesandvaluesinthesecountries.PeterAucoinelegantlysummarizesa"trinity"of
broadlybasedchallengeswithwhichwesterndemocracieshavestruggled,andwill
probablycontinuetostruggleinthefuture,partlythroughmanagementreform.Theseare
(1)growingdemandsforrestraintinpublicsectorspending,(2)increasingcynicism
regardinggovernmentbureaucracies'responsivenesstocitizens'concernsandpolitical
authorityanddissatisfactionwithprogrameffectiveness,and(3)aninternational,
marketdriveneconomythatdoesnotdefertodomesticpolicyefforts.Thesechallenges
haveapparentlyledmanywesterngovernments,inAmerica,Britain,NewZealand,Canada,
andelsewhere,totherecognitionthatfirmreformsandchangesinthepublicserviceshould
bemade.

Thereisnodoubtthatatleastsomeoftheaccumulatedwisdomoftheprivate
sectorinmanycountriesistransferabletothepublicsector(PoUitt,1988;Smith,1993).Inan
attempttoliberatethepublicsectorfromitsoldconservativeimageandtediouspractice
NPMwasadvancedasarelevantandpromisingalternative.NPMliteraturehastriedto
recognizeanddefinenewcriteriathatmayhelpindeterminingtheextenttowhichpublic
agenciessucceedinmeetingthegrowingneedsofthepublic.NPMhascontinuously
advocatedtheimplementationofspecificPerformanceIndicators(Pis)usedinprivate
organizationstocreateaperformancebasedcultureandmatchingcompensatorystrategies
inthesesystems.Ithasrecommendedthattheseindicatorsbeappliedinthepublicsector

(e.g..Smith,1993;Carter,1989)sincetheycanfunctionasmilestonesonthewaytobetter
efficiencyandeffectivenessofpublicagencies.Moreover,citizens'awarenessofthe
performanceofpublicserviceswassuggestedasacoreelementofNPMsinceitcan
increasethepoliticalpressureplacedonelectedandappointedpublicservants,thereby
enhancingbothmanagerialandallocativeefficiencyinthepublicsector.Scholarswho
advocateNPMlikenthisprocessofpublicaccountabilitytostakeholders/citizenstothe
roleadoptedbyfinancialreportingintheprivate/corporatesector(Smith,1993).Asinthat
sector,increasingexteriorrelatedoutcomescanhaveaprofoundimpactoninternalcontrol
mechanisms,asmanagersandpublicservantsbecomemoresensitivetotheirdutiesand
highlycommittedtoservetheirpubliccustomers.

Thus,Lynn(1998:231)suggestedthattheNPMofthelate1990shadthree
constructivelegaciesforthefieldofpublicadministrationandfordemocratictheoryand
practice.Thesewere(1)astrongeremphasisonperformancemotivatedadministrationand
inclusionintheadministrativecanonofperformanceorientedinstitutionalarrangements,
structuralforms,andmanagerialdoctrinesfittedtoparticularcontext,inotherwords,
advancesinthestateofthepublicmanagementart;(2)aninternationaldialogueonanda

16

strongercomparativedimensiontothestudyofstatedesignandadministrativereform;and
(3)theintegrateduseofeconomic,sociological,socialpsychological,andotheradvanced
conceptualmodelsandheuristicsinthestudyofpublicinstitutionsandmanagement,with
thepotentialtostrengthenthefield'sscholarshipandthepossibilitiesfortheorygrounded
practice.Whilethefirsttwo"legacies"arewidelydiscussedincontemporaryliterature,the
thirdismuchunderstudiedandneedsfurthertheoreticaldevelopment,empiricallyguided
research,andpracticalimplementation.

Moreover,KettlandMilward(1996)arguethatoneofNPM'smostsignificant
contributionstopublicadministrationasadisciplineintransitionisthefocusonthe
performanceofgovernmentalorganizations.Accordingtotheiranalysis,thisscientific
orientationneedstodrawon"awidevarietyofacademicdisciplinesforthefullandrichly
texturedpicturerequiredtoimprovethewaygovernmentworks.Onlythrough
interdisciplinarycrossfertilizationwillthepictureberichenoughtocapturetheenormous
varietyandcomplexityoftruepublicmanagement(andadministration)puzzles"(p.6).

Thejourneycontinues

Thispaperhasreliedonpreviousworkstodescribepublicadministrationasa
disciplineintransition.Inmanywaysithasalwaysbeenincontinuousmovement,butnot
alwaysinthesamedirection.Contrarytotheheavy,formal,andinflexibleimageof
bureaucracies,publicsectorbodiesinAmerica,Europe,andelsewherehavebeeninrapidly
intensifyingtransitionsincetheearly1990s.Duringthelastcenturypublicadministration
hasundergonegonesignificantchangesresultingfromcrises,aswellasbreakthroughsin
anultradynamicenvironment.Generallyspeaking,Waldo's(1968)assertionthatthese
ongoingtransformationsreflectedanidentitycrisisofascienceinformationisalsorelevant

today,albeitwithsomeamendments.Whereasinthepastthesecrisessignaledastruggle
fortherecognitionandlegitimacyofpublicadministrationasascholarlyacademicfield,
todaytheidentityproblemleadstootherdilemmas,whicharebeyondsimpleexistenceand
legitimacy.

Inrecentdecadesthestruggleoverthenatureanduniquenessofpublic
administrationhascontinued,somesayevenintensified.Fromtheveryearlydaysofthe
disciplinetothepresentitsboundarieshavebeeninastateofongoingdebate.Totalkof
the"Public",of"Administration",andoftheintegrationofthetwoconstructsintoauseful
terrainforstudyholdsoutpromiseaswellasinvolvingdifficulties.Butconsensusdoes
existonatleastoneissue:thepublicneedsabetterbureaucracy,moreflexible,working
efficientlyandeffectively,movingquicklytowardobjectives,andatthesametime
respondingtotheneedsofthepeoplewithoutdelaysandwithmaximumsocialsensitivity,
responsibility,andmorality.Thepublicalsoexpectsgoodandskillfuladministrators,versed
inthemysteriesofqualityservicesandeffectivemanagement.Onlytheycanproducebetter
"publicgoods"anddeliverthemtoallsectorsofsocietyinminimumtimeandatminimum
cost.Thesegoalsareundoubtedlyambitiousbuttheyhavethepotentialofsafeguarding
thestructureofdemocraticsocieties.Thisisarevisedversionoftheidealtypeofpublic
administrationsystemsapplicabletomoderntimes.

However,realityseemsfarmorecomplex.Thereisgrowingconcernamong

17

scholarstodaythatthesegoalsarewaybeyondreach.Modernstatesacrosstheworldface
seriousproblemsofadheringtothepublic'sneeds.Achievingonetargetisusually
accompaniedbypainfulcompromisesonothers,andlimitedresourcesarefrequentlycited
asthemainreasonforfailureintheprovisionofservices.Moreover,fundamentalchanges
aretakingplaceinpeople'slifestyles,asintheirbeliefsandideologies.Theyaremultiplied
throughhightechnology,communicationsystems,newdistributionofcapital,andtherise
ofnewcivicvaluesthatneverexistedbefore.Alltheseleadcitizenstoperceivegovernment
andpublicadministrationsystemsdifferently.Theroleofthestateanditsrelationshipwith
bureaucracyandwithcitizensisundergoingasubstantialtransformationnotonlyinthe
mindsofthepeoplebutalsoinscientificthinking.Inarapidlychangingenvironment,public
administrationhasamajorfunctionandnewaimsthatmustbeclearlyrecognized.Itremains
thebesttooldemocracycanusetocreatefruitfulreciprocalrelationshipswithcitizens,but
onahigherandbetterlevel.Touncoverthemajortasksandchallengesfacingthenew
generationofpublicadministrationwerequireacrossdisciplinarystrategyandimproved
integrationofallavailableknowledgeinthesocialsciencesaimedatredefiningthe
boundariesofpublicadministrationsystemsinitsnewera.

Today,atthebeginningofthe21'*'century,theformationofpublicadministration
asaninterdisciplinaryacademicfieldseemscertain.Still,itisunfinishedbusinessduetothe
needanddemandtomakeitmoreofa"hardersocialscience",onewhichiscloserto
managementscience,economics,orevenpsychology.Hence,thestateofthefieldisin
disputeamongacademicsandpractitionersfromacrosstheworldwhoseekhigherandmore

extensivescientificrecognition,byapplyingahigherlevelofempiricalbasedparadigm.Itis
arguedthatsuchinputsmayproduceamoreaccurateselfdefinitionandbetterapplicability
ofthefieldtorapidchangesinmodernlife.Thisprocesspresentsnewchallengesforpublic
administration.Perhapsthemostimportantistointegratemorewidelyexistingknowledgeof
thesocialscienceswithefficientpublicactionandwithqualitygovernmentaloperation.In
thecomingyearspublicadministrationwillbeevaluatedbyhigherstandardsoftheory
cohesivenessandbymorecomprehensiveperformanceindicatorsrootedinavarietyof
scientificfields.Theexplorationofnewinterdisciplinaryhorizonsforpublicadministration
isthusessential,andinevitableforthesuccessfulpassageofthefieldintothethird
millennium.SomewhatcontrarytotheconcernsofWaldo(1968),theidentitycrisesinits
newformmaycarryapositive,notendangering,interdisciplinarymerit.Theinterdisciplinary
orientationshavethepotentialofpullingpublicadministrationoutofitsperplexing
stagnatingstatusandleadittowardsamoresolidscientificposition.

Inlightoftheaboveaconsensusexiststodayamongscholarsandpractitioners
thatmodernpublicadministrationdecidedlybenefits,andwillcontinuetobenefit,fromthe
seminalinputsofsocialandculturalmotivesandmainlyfromtheimpactofmanagerialand
organizationaltheory.Inkeepingwiththese,modernsocietiesquestionthecurrent
obligationsofpublicpersonneltowardcitizens,andurgethemtoputpeopleandsocial
valuesfirst.Thesetaskscanbeachievedbytreatingcitizensascustomersorclientsbut
alsothroughbuildingadifferentvalueofadministrativespirit(VigodaandGolembiewski,
2001).Yetmanagerialtendenciesdrawfirefromthosewhoarguethataclientorientationof
thepublicsectorbreedscitizenpassivityandlackofindividualresponsibilitytowardthe
stateanditsagencies.Itisfurtherassumedthattodaytheseobligationsandcommitments
arenotclearlydecoded,manifested,orsatisfactoryimplied.Consequentlytheyyieldan
identityproblemofthefieldandstriveforredefinitionofitsunwrittencontractwiththe

18

people.Scholarsaredividedoverthebestwaytoobtainmissionsofgoodmanagement
togetherwithgoodculturalorder.Still,theyagreethatmuchmorecanbedonetoimprove
responsivenesstocitizens'needsanddemandswithoutforgoingtheactiveroleofcitizens
intheadministrativeprocess.

Moreover,theinformationrevolutionisexpectedtocreateagrowingimpacton
publicadministrationofthefuturebothasascienceandasaprofession.Inreferringtothe
modernpublicsectorCaldwell(2002)suggestedthat"Ourtaskforlinkinginformation,social
issues,politics,policyandmanagementisachallengeyettobeaccomplished.The
enthusiasmforpublicplanning,notablyinthe1930s,didnotsurvivetheSecondWorld
War.Thesocalled"reinvention"ofgovernmentbasedonamarketdrivenmodelappearsto
beessentiallycontemporaneousandsuperficialinrelationtothemultiplechallengestobe
confrontedinthe21'*'century"(p73174)Thus,Caldwellcontinuestoarguethat
"governmentsandtheiradministrators(inourtime)characteristicallyfocusonimmediate
situationsandpressingproblems.Therearefewpoliticalrewardsforanticipatingthelong
rangefuture.However,theadvancementofscienceandanapparentgrowthofpublic
acceptance,howeverslow,ofsciencebasedforecastsmayenlargethe"educating"roleof

publicadministration.Wearehardlyattheendoftheexpansionofknowledgeand
information,andthereisgrowingalthoughlimitedrecognitionthatwealsofaceformidable
challengestoasustainablefuture.Andsoitismorerealistictoseethe"NewPublic
Administration"asanevolvingprocesscontinuingtobecome"new"asitisadaptedto
meetingtheneedsoftheeverrecedingfuture".

Finally,inthispaperIproposedthattheapplicationofmultidisciplinary
approaches(political,social,andmanagerialbased)tothepublicserviceisessentialfor
somehowresolvingtheidentityconflictofthefield.Anagreementoverselfidentityis
requiredbeforeanyfurtherdevelopmentcanbeachieved.Itisarguedthatsometenetsof
administrativecultureanddemocraticvaluesneedtobeexploredbeforehigherlevelsof
socialtheorysynthesisandintegrationcanbereached.Thesemayalsobethemilestones
onthewaytobetterlinkage,partnership,andcooperationbetweenrulersandcitizensin
modernsocieties.Hereliesthemainchallengeofpublicadministrationinthecomingyears:
theinventionofanewvitalizedadministrativegenerationthatisinterdisciplinaryinnature
andtightlyboundedtogetherwithmodernparticipatorydemocracy.Thecontributionof
thispaperisitsefforttobringtheseviewstogetherandtoproduceamultifacetedanalysis
ofmodernpublicadministration.

19

References

Aucoin,P.(1995).TheNewPublicManagement:CanadainComparativePerspective.
Montreal,Quebec:IRPP,AshgatePublishingCompany.

Boston,J.Martin,J.,Pallot,J.,andWalsh,P.(1996).PublicManagement:TheNewZealand
Model.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Camp,R.C.(1998).GlobalCasesinBenchmarking:BestPracticesfromOrganizationsaround
theWorld.Milwaukee,WI:ASQQuaUtyPress.

Carter,N.(1989).Performanceindicators:'Backseatdriving'or'handsoffcontrol?Policyand
Politics.17.131138.

Caldwell,L.K.(2002).Publicadministrationthenewgeneration:managementinhigh
informationlevelsociety.InE.Vigoda(Ed.),PublicAdministration:AnInterdisciplinarv
CriticalAnalysis.pp.151176.NewYork:MarcelDekker.

DeLeon,L.(1996).Ethicsandentrepreneurship,PolicvStudiesJournal.24.495510.

EUwood,J.W.(1996).Politicalscience.InD.F.KettlandH.B.Milward(Eds.),TheStateof
PublicManagement,pp.5174.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Etzioni,A.(1994).TheSpiritofCommunitv.NewYork:Touchstone.

Etzioni,A.(1995).NewCommunitarianThinking:Persons.Virtues.Institutions,and
Communities.Charlottesville:VirginiaUniversityPress.

Fayol,H.(1925).Administration,IndustrielleetGenerale.Paris.

Garson,G.D.,andOverman,E.S.(1983).PublicManagementResearchintheUnitedStates.
NewYork:Praeger.

Gidron,B.,Kramer,R.M.,&Salamon,L.(1992).GovernmentandtheThirdSector:Emerging
RelationshipintheWelfareState.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.

Gladstone,D.(ed.)(1995).BritishSocialWelfare:Past.PresentandFuture.London:UCL
Press.

Golembiewski,R.T.(1995).PracticalPublicManagement.NewYork:MarcelDekker.

Goodnow,F.J.(1900).PoliticsandAdministration:AStudyinGovernment.NewYork:
Russell&Russell.

Hammer,M.,andChampy,J.(1994).ReengineeringtheCorporation:AManifestofor
BusinessRevolution.NewYork:HarperBusiness.

Hofstede,G.(1980).Culture'sConsequences:InternationalDifferencesinWorkRelated

20

Values.London:Sage.

Hofstede,G.(1991).CulturesandOrganizations.London:McGrawHill.

Jackson,P.M.andMcleod,P.(1982).ThePoliticalEconomyofBureaucracy.Oxford;P.
Allan.

Kettl,D.F.(1993).Publicadministration:Thestateofthefield.InA.W.Finifter(Ed.),
PoliticalScience:TheStateoftheDisciplineILpp.407428.WashingtonDC:American
PoUticalScienceAssociation.Kettl,D.F.,andMilward,H.B.(Eds.)(1996).TheStateof
PublicManagement.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniyersityPress.

Khademian,A.M.(1998).Whatdowewantpublicmanagerstobe?Comparingreforms.
PublicAdministrationReyiew.58.269273.

Kilmann,R.H.etal.(Eds.)(1985).GainingControloftheCorporateCulture.SanFrancisco:
JosseyBass.

Lynn,L.E.(1996).PublicManagementasArt.Science,andProfession.Chatham,NJ:
ChathamHousePublishers.


Lynn,L.E.(1998).Thenewpublicmanagement:Howtotransformathemeintoalegacy.
PublicAdministrationReyiew,58,231237.

Osborne,D.,andGaebler,T.(1992).ReinyentingGoyernment:HowtheEntrepreneurialSpirit
IsTransformingthePublicSector.Reading,MA:AddisonWesley.

Ott,J.S.,Hyde,A.C.,andShafritz,J.M.(Eds.)(1991).PubUcManagement:TheEssential
Readings.Chicago:NelsonHall.

Ouchi,W.G.(1981).TheoryZ:HowAmericanBusinessCanMeettheJapaneseChallenge.
Reading,MA:AddisonWesley.

Perry,J.L.,andKraemer,K.(1983).PublicManagement:PublicandPriyatePerspectiyes.
PaloAlto,CA:Mayfield.

Peters,G.B.(1996).ModelsofGoyernanceforthe1990s.InD.F.KettlandH.B.Milward
(Eds.),TheStateofPublicManagement.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniyersityPress,pp.15
44.

Pfeffer,J.(1992).ManagingwithPower.Boston.MA:HaryardBusinessSchoolPress.

PoUitt,C.(1988).Bringingconsumersintoperformancemeasurement.PolicyandPolitics.16,
7787.

Rainey,H.(1990).Publicmanagement:Recentdeyelopmentandcurrentprospects.InN.B.
LynnandA.Wildaysky(Eds.),PublicAdministration:TheStateoftheDiscipline.Chatham,
NJ:ChathamHouse,pp.157184.

Rosenbloom,D.H.(1998).PublicAdministration:UnderstandingManagement.Politics,and

21

Law.Boston,MA:McGrawHill.

Schein,E.H.(1985).OrganizationalCultureandLeadership.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.

Shafritz,J.M.,andRussell,E.W.(1997).IntroducingPublicAdministration.NewYork:
AddisonWesleyLongman.

Smith,P.(1993).Outcomerelatedperformanceindicatorsandorganizationalcontrolinthe
publicsector.BritishJournalofManagement,4,135151.

Stewart,J.,&Ranson,R.(1994).Managementinthepublicdomain.InD.McKevitt,andA.
Lawton(Eds.),PublicSectorManagement.London:Sage,pp.5470.

Urwick,L.(1928).TheMeaningofRationalisation.London,Nibset.

Vigoda,E.,&Golembiewski,R.T.(2001).Citizenshipbehaviorandthespiritofnew
managerialism:Atheoreticalframeworkandchallengeforgovernance.AmericanReviewof
PublicAdministration,31,273295.

VigodaE.(2002)(Editor).PublicAdministration:AnInterdisciplinarvCriticalAnalvsis.New
York:MarcelDekker.

Waldo,D.(1968).Scopeofthetheoryofpublicadministration.AnnalsoftheAmerican
AcademvofPoliticalandSocialSciences,8,126.

Weber,M.(1947).ThetheoryofsocialandEconomicOrganizations.NewYork;FreePress.

Wallace,S.(1978).Premisesofpublicadministration:Pastandemerging.InJ.ShafritzandA.
Hyde(Eds.),ClassicsofPublicAdministration.OakPark,IL:MoorePublishing,p.201.

Wilenski,P.(1980).Efficiencyorequity:competingvaluesinadministrativereform.Policy
StudiesJournal,9,12391249.

Wildavsky,A.B.(1984)Thepoliticsofthebudgetaryprocess.Boston;LittleBrown.

Wilson,W.(1887).Thestudyofadministration.PoliticalScienceOuarterlv.2,197222.

ERANVIGODAisaseniorlecturerofPublicAdministrationandOrganizational
BehaviorhtiieDepartmentofPotiticalScienceattiieUniversityofHaifa,Israel.
Hisresearchinterestsincludereformsintiiepubticsector,citizenshipbehavior,
behaviorandperformanceintiiepubticsector,responsivenessofthepublicsector
aswellasOrganizationalPoUtics(OP)andOrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior
(OCB).HisrecentworkhasbeenpubUshedinPublicAdministrationReview,
AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,JournalofPublicAdministration
Researchandtheory.PublicAdministration,HumanRelations,Journalof

22

VocationalBehavior,JournalofBusinessResearch,PoliticalPsychology,
andAdministration&Society.