Public Administration- Concepts and Principles

Table of Contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 History of Public Administration.................................................................... 3
1.1.1 Historic development of Public Administration during 19th century........................ 3
1.1.2 Historic development of Public Administration during the 1940s............................. 6
1.1.3 Development of Public Administration in the Late 1990s–2000................................ 7
1.2 Woodrow Wilson............................................................................................. 7
1.2.1 Public administration by Woodrow Wilson............................................................................. 8
1.3 Frederick Winslow Taylor.............................................................................. 9
1.3.1 Work by Frederick Winslow Taylor:............................................................................................... 9
1.4 Max Weber.................................................................................................... 12
2 Concepts of Public Administration................................................................... 16
2.1 Organisation.................................................................................................. 16
2.1.1 Henry Fayol- Principles Of Organisation............................................................................... 17
2.1.2 Gullick And Urwick: Principles Of Organisation............................................................... 18
2.1.3 James D. Mooney And Alan C. Reily: Principles Of Organisation............................. 19
2.2 Co-ordination................................................................................................ 20
2.2.1 Importance of Co-ordination........................................................................................................ 20
2.2.2 Types of Co-ordination..................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Public Corporation........................................................................................ 22
2.3.1 Types of Public Corporation.......................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Span of control.............................................................................................. 23
2.4.1 Importance of Span of Control-.................................................................................................... 24
2.4.2 Factor Determining Span of Control-....................................................................................... 24
2.5 Delegation..................................................................................................... 25
2.5.1 Components of Delegation-............................................................................................................. 26
3 PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY........................................................................ 27
3.1 Unity of command......................................................................................... 27
3.2 Stability & continuity of command............................................................... 29
3.3 Independence of command of obedience and discipline.......................... 29
3.4 Duty of interest............................................................................................. 30
3.5 Independence of command and responsibility.......................................... 31
4 Conclusion........................................................................................................... 33
5 References........................................................................................................... 35
5.1 Bibliography.................................................................................................. 35
5.2 Internet Resources....................................................................................... 36
 1. Introduction

Public administration houses the implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares
civil servants for this work.[1] As a "field of inquiry with a diverse scope" its "fundamental goal... is to advance management and policies so that
government can function."[2] Some of the various definitions which have been offered for the term are: "the management of public programs"[3]; the
"translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day"[4]; and "the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies
themselves, the various inputs that have produced them, and the inputs necessary to produce alternative policies."[5]

Public administration is "centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programmes as well as the behavior of officials
(usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct".[6] Many unelected public servants can be considered to be public administrators,
including heads of city, county, regional, state and federal departments such as municipal budget directors, human resources (H.R.) administrators,
city managers, census managers, state [mental health] directors, and cabinet secretaries.[7] Public administrators are public servants working in public
departments and agencies, at all levels of government.[8]In the US, civil servants and academics such as Woodrow Wilson promoted American civil
service reform in the 1880s, moving public administration into academia.[9] However, "until the mid-20th century and the dissemination of the
German sociologist Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy" there was not "much interest in a theory of public administration."[10] The field is
multidisciplinary in character; one of the various proposals for public administration's sub-fields sets out six pillars, including human resources,
organizational theory, policy analysis and statistics, budgeting, and ethics.[11]

Public administration is a part of the wider field of administration. ‘Administration’, as E.N. Gladen says, ‘is a long and slightly pompous word, but it
has humble meaning.’ The English word ‘administer’ is derived from the Latin word ‘ad’ and ‘ministrare’ which means ‘to serve’, ‘to care for’ or ‘to
look after people’. It is a process of management which is practiced by all kinds of organisations from the household to the most complex system of
the Government. Some schools that educate individuals for careers in governmental and non-profit organisations are labeled ‘Public Affaisr’, ‘Public
Service’ etc. the traditional and most meaningful label, however, remains Public Administration.
 The subject of Public Administration lends itself to two usages: it is an activity and it also refers to the discipline (or subject) of intellectual inquiry
and study. Thus, enforcement of law and order is an activity and is part of Public Administration. At the present stage of man’s evolution, Public
Administration has proved to be indispensable. The scope of Public Administration has expanded with the rise of the modern administrative state.
However, Public Administration is a young social science, perhaps the youngest in the family of social sciences. It is still in its searching and probing
phase. The discipline has not yet reached its plateau.

Public Administration as a filed of systematic study is not as old as it is as an aspect of governmental activity. Yet, curiously Public Administration
never achieved a definition that commands general acceptance. Due to its rapid growth in the twentieth century of Public Administration it has been
very difficult to devise a proper and apt definition as it keeps on changing. Public Administration is distinguished from other forms of administration
by the fact that its ultimate purpose is general interest and public goal.

The concept of Public Administration has been developed over a period of time. To understand its development over the decade we need to discuss
its historic development so far. The history of Public Administration can be discussed in the next topic.

1.1 History of Public Administration

1.1.1 Historic development of Public Administration during 19th century

Dating back to Antiquity, Pharaohs, kings and emperors have required pages, treasurers, and tax collectors to administer the practical business of
government. Prior to the 19th century, staffing of most public administrations was rife with nepotism, favoritism, and political patronage, which was
often referred to as a "spoils system". Public administrators have been the "eyes and ears" of rulers until relatively recently. In medieval times, the
abilities to read and write, add and subtract were as dominated by the educated elite as public employment. Consequently, the need for expert civil
 servants whose ability to read and write formed the basis for developing expertise in such necessary activities as legal record-keeping, paying and
feeding armies and levying taxes. As the European Imperialist age progressed and the militarily powers extended their hold over other continents and
people, the need for a sophisticated public administration grew.

The eighteenth-century noble, King Frederick William I of Prussia, created professorates in Cameralism in an effort to train a new class of public
administrators. From a Western European perspective, Classic, Medieval, and Enlightenment-era scholars formed the foundation of the discipline
that has come to be called public administration. Lorenz von Stein, an 1855 German professor from Vienna, is considered the founder of the science
of public administration in many parts of the world. In the time of Von Stein, public administration was considered a form of administrative law, but
Von Stein believed this concept too restrictive. Von Stein taught that public administration relies on many prestablished disciplines such as
sociology, political science, administrative law and public finance. He called public administration an integrating science, and stated that public
administrators should be concerned with both theory and practice. He argued that public administration is a science because knowledge is generated
and evaluated according to the scientific method. Modern American public administration is an extension of democratic governance, justified by
classic and liberal philosophers of the western world ranging from Aristotle to John Locke[12] to Thomas Jefferson.[13]

In the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson is considered the father of public administration. He first formally recognized public
administration in an 1887 article entitled "The Study of Administration." The future president wrote that "it is the object of administrative study to
discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible
efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy."[14] Wilson was more influential to the science of public administration than
Von Stein, primarily due to an article Wilson wrote in 1887 in which he advocated four concepts:
 Separation of politics and administration
 Comparative analysis of political and private organizations
 Improving efficiency with business-like practices and attitudes toward daily operations
 Improving the effectiveness of public service through management and by training civil servants, merit-based assessment.
 The separation of politics and administration has been the subject of lasting debate. The different perspectives regarding this dichotomy contribute to
differentiating characteristics of the suggested generations of public administration.

By the 1920s, scholars of public administration had responded to Wilson's solicitation and thus textbooks in this field were introduced. A few
distinguished scholars of that period were, Luther Gulick, Lyndall Urwick, Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor, and others. Frederick Taylor (1856-1915),
another prominent scholar in the field of administration and management also published a book entitled ‘The Principles of Scientific Management’.
He believed that scientific analysis would lead to the discovery of the ‘one best way’ to do things and /or carrying out an operation. This, according
to him could help save cost and time. Taylor’s technique was later introduced to private industrialists, and later into the various government
organizations.[15]

Taylor's approach is often referred to as Taylor's Principles, and/or Taylorism. Taylor's scientific management consisted of main four principles:

 Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
 Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.
 Provide ‘Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task’.
 Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and
the workers actually perform the tasks.

Taylor had very precise ideas about how to introduce his approach: ‘It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the
best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of
standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone.’[16]
The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) the leading professional group for public administration was founded in 1939. ASPA
sponsors the journal Public Administration Review, which was founded in 1940.[17]
 1.1.2 Historic development of Public Administration during the 1940s

The separation of politics and administration advocated by Wilson continues to play a significant role in public administration today. However,
second-generation scholars, beginning in the 1940s, challenged the dominance of this dichotomy. Luther Gulick's fact-value dichotomy was a key
contender for Wilson's proposed politics-administration dichotomy. In place of Wilson's first generation split, Gulick advocated a "seamless web of
discretion and interaction".[18]

Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick are two second-generation scholars. Gulick, Urwick, and the new generation of administrators built on the work
of contemporary behavioral, administrative, and organizational scholars including Henri Fayol, Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Paul Appleby, Frank
Goodnow, and Willam Willoughby. The new generation of organizational theories no longer relied upon logical assumptions and generalizations
about human nature like classical and enlightened theorists.

Gulick developed a comprehensive, generic theory of organization that emphasized the scientific method, efficiency, professionalism, structural
reform, and executive control. Gulick summarized the duties of administrators with an acronym; POSDCORB, which stands for planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Fayol developed a systematic, 14-point, treatment of private management.
Second-generation theorists drew upon private management practices for administrative sciences. A single, generic management theory bleeding the
borders between the private and the public sector was thought to be possible. With the general theory, the administrative theory could be focused on
governmental organizations.

1.1.3 Development of Public Administration in the Late 1990s–2000

In the late 1990s, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed a new public services model in response to the dominance of NPM. [19] A successor to NPM is
digital era governance, focusing on themes of reintegrating government responsibilities, needs-based holism (executing duties in cursive ways), and
digitalization (exploiting the transformational capabilities of modern IT and digital storage).One example of this is openforum.com.au, an Australian
non-for-profit eDemocracy project which invites politicians, senior public servants, academics, business people and other key stakeholders to engage
in high-level policy debate.
 Another new public service model is what has been called New Public Governance, an approach which includes a centralization of power; an
increased number, role and influence of partisan-political staff; personal-politicization of appointments to the senior public service; and, the
assumption that the public service is promiscuously partisan for the government of the day.[20] Increasingly, public policy academics and practitioners
have utilized the theoretical concepts of political economy to explain policy outcomes such as the success or failure of reform efforts and/or the
persistence of sub-optimal outcomes.[21]During this time Woodrow Wilson and Taylor gave the most important theories and then later Max Weber
gave the theory of bureaucracy, which is a very important area to be studied. Let us discuss these theories in the following topics.

1.2 Woodrow Wilson

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, in office from 1913 to 1921. A
leader of the Progressive Movement, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from
1911 to 1913. Running against Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, Socialist Party of America candidate Eugene V. Debs, and former
President Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912. His contribution to
Public Administration is remarkable and to be noted. He gave all new concept to this field. The concept of Public Administration by him is as
follows:

1.2.1 Public administration by Woodrow Wilson

Wilson also studied public administration, which he called "government in action; it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of
government, and is of course as old as government itself".[22] He believed that by studying public administration governmental efficiency could be
increased.[23]Wilson was concerned with the implementation of government. He faulted political leaders who focused on philosophical issues and the
nature of government and dismissed the critical issues of government administration as mere "practical detail". He thought such attitudes represented
the requirements of smaller countries and populations. By his day, he thought, "it is getting to be harder to run a constitution than to frame
 one."[24] He thought it time "to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization,
and it to crown its dutifulness".[25] He complained that studies of administration drew principally on the history of Continental Europe and an
American equivalent was required. He summarized the growth of such foreign states as Prussia, France, and England, highlighting the events that led
to advances in administration.

By contrast, he thought the United States required greater compromise because of the diversity of public opinion and the difficulty of forming a
majority opinion. Thus practical reform to the government is necessarily slow. Yet Wilson insisted that "administration lies outside the proper sphere
of politics"[26] and that "general laws which direct these things to be done are as obviously outside of and above administration."[27] He likens
administration to a machine that functions independent of the changing mood of its leaders. Such a line of demarcation is intended to focus
responsibility for actions taken on the people or persons in charge. As Wilson put it, "public attention must be easily directed, in each case of good or
bad administration, to just the man deserving of praise or blame. There is no danger in power, if only it be not irresponsible. If it be divided, dealt out
in share to many, it is obscured..."[28]
Essentially, the items under the discretion of administration must be limited in scope, as to not block, nullify, obfuscate, or modify the
implementation of governmental decree made by the executive branch.

1.3 Frederick Winslow Taylor

Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856 – March 21, 1915) was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial
efficiency.[29] He is regarded as the father of scientific management and was one of the first management consultants. [30] Taylor was one of the
intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement and his ideas, broadly conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era.

1.3.1 Work by Frederick Winslow Taylor:

 Taylor was a mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. Taylor is regarded as the father of scientific management, and was
one of the first management consultants and director of a famous firm. In Peter Drucker's description,
“Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study. On Taylor's
'scientific management' rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the
developed countries well above any level recorded before, even for the well-to-do. Taylor, though the Isaac Newton (or perhaps the Archimedes) of
the science of work, laid only first foundations, however. Not much has been added to them since – even though he has been dead all of sixty
years.”[31]

Taylor's scientific management consisted of four principles:

 Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
 Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.
 Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task".
 Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers
actually perform the tasks.

Future US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis coined the term scientific management in the course of his argument for the Eastern Rate Case
before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1910. Brandeis argued that railroads, when governed according to Taylor's principles, did not need to
raise rates to increase wages. Taylor used Brandeis's term in the title of his monograph The Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911.
The Eastern Rate Case propelled Taylor's ideas to the forefront of the management agenda. Taylor wrote to Brandeis "I have rarely seen a new
movement started with such great momentum as you have given this one." Taylor's approach is also often referred to as Taylor's Principles, or,
frequently disparagingly, as Taylorism.

Taylor had very precise ideas about how to introduce his system:
 It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced
cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with
management alone.[32]

Workers were supposed to be incapable of understanding what they were doing. According to Taylor this was true even for rather simple tasks.
'I can say, without the slightest hesitation,' Taylor told a congressional committee, 'that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man
who is ... physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend
the science of handling pig-iron.[33]
Taylor believed in transferring control from workers to management. He set out to increase the distinction between mental (planning work) and
manual labor (executing work). Detailed plans specifying the job, and how it was to be done, were to be formulated by management and
communicated to the workers.[34]

The introduction of his system was often resented by workers and provoked numerous strikes. The strike at Watertown Arsenal led to the
congressional investigation in 1912. Taylor believed the laborer was worthy of his hire, and pay was linked to productivity. His workers were able to
earn substantially more than those under conventional management,[12] and this earned him enemies among the owners of factories where scientific
management was not in use.

Taylor thought that by analyzing work, the "One Best Way" to do it would be found. He is most remembered for developing the stopwatch time
study, which combined with Frank Gilbreth's motion study methods later becomes the field of time and motion study. He would break a job into its
component parts and measure each to the hundredth of a minute. One of his most famous studies involved shovels. He noticed that workers used the
same shovel for all materials. He determined that the most effective load was 21½ lb, and found or designed shovels that for each material would
scoop up that amount. He was generally unsuccessful in getting his concepts applied and was dismissed from Bethlehem Steel. Nevertheless, Taylor
was able to convince workers who used shovels and whose compensation was tied to how much they produced to adopt his advice about the optimum
 way to shovel by breaking the movements down into their component elements and recommending better ways to perform these movements. It was
largely through the efforts of his disciples (most notably H.L. Gantt) that industry came to implement his ideas.

1.4 Max Weber

Maximilian Karl Emil "Max" Weber was a German sociologist, philosopher, and political economist who profoundly influenced social theory, social
research, and the discipline of sociology itself.[35] Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as one of the three founding architects
of sociology.[36]

His analysis of bureaucracy emphasised that modern state institutions are increasingly based on rational-legal authority. Weber also made a variety of
other contributions in economic history, as well as economic theory and methodology. Weber's analysis of modernity and rationalisation significantly
influenced the critical theory associated with the Frankfurt School.

In political sociology, one of Weber's most significant contributions is his Politics as a Vocation essay. Therein, Weber unveils the definition of the
state as that entity which possesses a delegatable monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.[37]

Weber wrote that politics is the sharing of state's power between various groups, and political leaders are those who wield this power.[38] A politician
must not be a man of the "true Christian ethic", understood by Weber as being the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, that is to say, the injunction to
turn the other cheek.[39] An adherent of such an ethic ought rather to be understood to be a saint, for it is only saints, according to Weber, that can
appropriately follow it.[90] The political realm is no realm for saints; a politician ought to marry the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of
responsibility and must possess both a passion for his vocation and the capacity to distance himself from the subject of his exertions (the
governed).[40]
 Weber distinguished three ideal types of political leadership (alternatively referred to as three types of domination, legitimisation or authority):
1. charismatic domination (familial and religious),
2. traditional domination (patriarchs, patrimonialism, feudalism) and
3. legal domination (modern law and state, bureaucracy).[41]

In his view, every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained such elements and they can be analysed on the basis of this tripartite
distinction.[42] He notes that the instability of charismatic authority forces it to "routinise" into a more structured form of authority. [43] In a pure type
of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a ruler can lead to a "traditional revolution". The move towards a rational-legal structure of authority,
utilising a bureaucratic structure, is inevitable in the end.[93] Thus this theory can be sometimes viewed as part of the social evolutionism theory.
This ties to his broader concept of rationalisation by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction.[44]
Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge. —Max Weber[45]
Weber described many ideal types of public administration and government in his masterpiece Economy and Society (1922). His critical study of the
bureaucratisation of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work.[46]It was Weber who began the studies of bureaucracy and whose
works led to the popularisation of this term.[47]Many aspects of modern public administration go back to him and a classic, hierarchically organised
civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".[48] As the most efficient and rational way of organising, bureaucratisation for
Weber was the key part of the rational-legal authority and furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalisation of the Western
society.[49]

Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of the bureaucracy:[50] The growth in space and population being administered, the growth in
complexity of the administrative tasks being carried out and the existence of a monetary economy – these resulted in a need for a more efficient
administrative system.[51] Development of communication and transportation technologies made more efficient administration possible (and
popularly requested) and democratisation and rationalisation of culture resulted in demands that the new system treat everybody equally.[52]
Weber's ideal bureaucracy is characterised by hierarchical organisation, by delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, by action taken
(and recorded) on the basis of written rules, by bureaucratic officials needing expert training, by rules being implemented neutrally and by career
advancement depending on technical qualifications judged by organisations, not by individuals.[53]

The decisive reason for the advance of the bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of
organization.
—Max Weber[54]
While recognizing bureaucracy as the most efficient form of organization and ev0en indispensable for the modern state, Weber also saw it as a threat
to individual freedoms and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human
life traps individuals in the aforementioned "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control.[55] In order to counteract bureaucrats, the system
needs entrepreneurs and politicians.[56]

This was the basis and development of public administration during the period of Max Weber and Taylor. These developments are not applied
as such. An administrator needs to apply his mind and experience to make the administration possible and run smoothly. For this there are some basic
concepts of administration which are followed by all the managers. These basic concepts can be descriptively explained and discussed in the next
chapter.
 2 Concepts of Public Administration

Public Administration is the bureaucracy of government, the latter being the working machinery under which the state operates. The government has
the responsibility of providing security, safeguard the fundamental human dignity and happiness for all. Public Administration is the act of
implementing public policies, it is government in action, a collective effort of getting things done in accordance with the laid down procedures and
within the legal framework.[57] The Concept of Public Administration historically, Governments have attempted to develop sound governance and
public administration to support social, political and economic development. However, changing in political and economic context has made it
increasingly difficult to determine what constitute the principles, foundations, quality and effectiveness of public administration.[58]

2.1 Organisation

Organisation is the basic function of management as no management can function smoothly without a proper organisation. Organisation is the
function of management involves identification and grouping the activities to be performed and dividing them among the individuals and creating
authority and responsibility relationship between them. It is the dynamic process and raises the problems of rational construction of the structure of
organisation.[59]The main thesis of the author like Willoughby, Mary Parker Follet, Henry Fayol, Mooney and Reiley, Gullick and Urwick is that
there are principles of organisation and it id the task of the author to discover them and promote their application. “It is the general thesis of this
paper that there are principles which can be arrived at inductively from the study of human organisation which should arrangements for human
association of any kind. These principles can be studied as technical question, irrespective of the purpose of enterprise, the personal comprising it, or
any constitutional, political, or social theory underlying its creation”[60] Mooney and Reilet, the General Motors Executives, with a long experience,
regarded co-ordination as the first principles of organisation.[61]

2.1.1 Henry Fayol- Principles Of Organisation

 The real father of the “principles schools of management” is the French industrialist Henry Fayol. His acute observation on the principles of general
management first appeared in 1916 in French, under the title‘Administration Industrielle et Genrale’. This monograph was translated in English in
1929. Noting that principles of organisation are flexible and not absolute, Fayol listed fourteen, based on his experience.[62] They are:

1. Division of Work.
2. Authority and Responsibility.
3. Discipline.
4. Unity of Command.
5. Unity of Direction.
6. Subordinate of Individual to General Interest.
7. Remuneration.
8. Centralisation.
9. Scalar Chain.
10. Order.
11. Equity.
12. Stability of Tenure.
13. Initiative.
14. Esprit de Corps

2.1.2 Gullick And Urwick: Principles Of Organisation

 Gullick and Urwick were deeply involved in the administrative reform movements in the United States. In 1937, believed that it is possible to
develop a science of administration based on principles. Having stress the importance of the structure as a designing process, they devoted their
attention to the discovery of principles based on which may be designed. Gullick enumerates ten principles of organisation.[63] They are:

1. Division on Work on Specialisation.

2. Bases on Departmental Organisation.
3. Co-ordination through Hierarchy.
4. Deliberate Co-ordination.
5. Co-ordination through Committees.
6. Decentralisation.
7. Unity of Command.
8. Staff and Line.
9. Delegation.
10. Span of Control.

Among the ten principles of administration listed out, Gullick lays special emphasis on the division of work. Gullick also identified the executive
functions and termed the new word “POSDCORB” incorporating all functions detailed above. Urwick also identified eight principles of organisation,
which are[64]:

1. The principles of objectives.

2. The principles of correspondence.
3. The principles of responsibility.
4. The scalar principle.
5. The principle of span of control.
6. The principle of specialisation.
7. The principle of co-ordination, and
8. The principle of definition.

2.1.3 James D. Mooney And Alan C. Reily: Principles Of Organisation

Mooney and Reily proposed four principles of organisation:

1. Coordinating Principles.
2. Scalar Principles.
3. Functional Principles.
4. Staff and Line.

The exponents of the principles school are bitterly criticised as the prescription of the principle school are based on personal experience and common
sense conclusions.
Organisation is used in the structure as a designing process. The organisation planner first all determines the goals of the organisation and then
determines the structure in accordance with the goals and while designing a structure certain principles are applied. These principles have developed
on the basis of long administrative experiences and observations of administrators and scholars. Some of these important principles are:
1. Hierarchy.
2. Span of Control.
3. Co-ordination.
4. Unity of Command.
5. Leadership.
6. Authority.
7. Delegation.
8. Centralisation and Decentralisation.
9. Decision Making.
 10. Planning.
11. Supervision and Control.

They are so called as problem of management. According to M.P. Sharma, “These are crucial problems of organisation.” [65]However the principles of
organisation are neither rigid nor absolute. Flexibility and adaptability to every need are in the essence of these principles.

2.2 Co-ordination

The term Co-ordination is defined as the process of bringing about unity and harmony of functioning among the diverse element and sub-system of
the organisation. It is a conscious and rational administerial function pulling together the different threats of organised activity and weaved them into
unified whole to achieved pre-determine goals in an effective manner. According to J.D Mooney, “Co-ordination is an orderly arrangement of group
effort, to provide unity of action in pursuit of common purpose.”[66] In the Words of Dalton McFarland, “Co-ordination is the process whereby an
executive develops an orderly pattern of group effort among his subordinates and secure unity of action in pursuit of common purpose”.[67]

2.2.1 Importance of Co-ordination

The need of Co-ordination is self evident since the organisation in contrived and not a natural system. The need and importance of Co-ordination for
effective administration may be explained below.

1. Channelization of Group Effort- Co-ordination is directed towards channelizing the co-operative efforts, energies and skills of work group along organisationally
determined lines. In the absence of Co-ordination, group members are likely to pull in different direction and worked at cross purposes.
 2. Unity in Diversity- Co-ordination represents unity of action in a setting characterised by diversity and multiplicity of goals, resources, activities, techniques, skills,
perceptions and viewpoints of people. Without a conscious bid of unity of action, organised activity is likely to be wayward and haphazard. Administration aims at
striving for unity while taking advantage of diversity.
3. Harmonisation of Goals- Co-ordination aims at ensuring that each department or unit in an organisation has knowledge of and commitment to harmonise its own
goals, activities and requirement with goals.
4. Growing Specialisation- Modern Public Administration has become increasingly complex due to the fact that various functions are to be performed by specialists.
Specialisation in turn brings about the need of more Co-ordination because of the diversity of task to be under taken and to carry them out.[68]

2.2.2 Types of Co-ordination

i. Internal and External – Internal coordination with individual activities of persons which is also known as functional. External coordination is co-ordination with
other organization. It is structural.
ii. Horizontal and Perpendicular or Vertical: Vertical when Head coordinate with subordinates and it is horizontal or sideways..
iii. Procedural and Substantive–It is specification of organization itself that is generalized description of the behaviors’; substantive is concerned with content of the
organizational activities.[69]

Mary Parker Follett is a political scientist of international repute, turned her attention to social administration and the solution of social problems and
therefore smoothly to the administration. In her famous work “Dynamic Administration” (1941) she laid down the following the following principles
of Co-ordination-
(i) Direct Contact,
(ii) Early Stages,
(iii) Continuity,
(iv) Reciprocal relationship.[70]

2.3 Public Corporation

 Public Corporation is a corporate body created by special Act of the legislature, with its powers, duties, privileges and patterns of management
defined by the Act. Herbert Morrison defines public corporation as “combination of public ownership, public accountability and business
management of public ends”. In the words of Marshall E. Dimock, “Public Corporation is a public owned enterprise that has been chartered under
federal, state or local law for the particular business or financial purposed.”[71]
The 20th century has witness the growth of new device of administration organisation known as ‘public corporation ’. Prof. W.A. Robson said, “The
most important innovation in political organisation and constitutional practice involved public corporation.”[72]This system arose in the period of
crisis in order to meet certain emergencies created by the Great War and Great Emergency.
Features of Public Corporation-
According to professor Shukla, “corporation is a corporate body created by the legislature with a defined powers and functions and financially
independent having clear cut jurisdiction over a specific area or over a particular type of commercial activity”. [73]The main features of public
corporation are as follows:
1. Legal Entity- Being a corporate body, it enjoys a separate legal entity and it is liable to be treated as such. It can enter into contracts, acquired and
hold property. Sue and can be sued in its own name.
2. Body Corporate- It is a body corporate created by separate Act of Parliament or State Legislature. Since it is created by special Act; its power, duties,
privileges, relationship to government department, etc are all defined by the Act.
3. Financial Self Support- It is financially self supporting. The Government initially contributes to its capital and may also grant loan from time to time
to enable it to function properly.
4. Accountable to Government- It is true that public corporation has financial personnel and managerial autonomy but at the same time they are
responsible and accountable to the Government from time to time. They have to submit the annual report and other document to the Government.
Board members are appointed by the Government and they can also be removed by the Government.
5. Service Motive- The chief motive of the corporation is to render service to the public; earning surplus or profit takes secondary motives.

2.3.1 Types of Public Corporation

The principal basis of distinction among the corporation from the point of view of their official characteristics is the degree to which government
owns and controls them. Using this as criterion of definition, corporation falls into three reasonable distinct classes.
 1. Corporation wholly owned by the Government, there are propriately known as Government Corporation.
2. There are corporation in which Government has either invested or board representation or both, but in which control is vested in the hands of the
private corporation. These are less than full fledge Government Corporation and are conveniently termed as “mixed enterprise”.
3. There are corporation established by private enterprise under the authority of law subjected to some degree of supervision by the Government, but in
which there is no element of Government investment or board representation.

2.4 Span of control

In Public Administration, Span of Control refers to the number of subordinates whom administrator can effectively control. It also means a number of
subordinates an administrator can direct. It denotes the degree of direct responsibility of an officer for the unification of efforts to his immediate
subordinates. According to Dimock, “The Span of Control is the number of range of direct, habitual communication contact between Chief Executive
of an enterprise and his principal fellow officer”.

2.4.1 Importance of Span of Control-

Span of Control is one of the core principles of organisational structure around which other principles, like division of work, delegation of authority,
scalar chain of command, and unity of command and so on are built. The first person to direct public attention to the principle of Span of Control was
a soldier, the late General Sir Ian Hamilton. The inherent limitation of the human span of management and control provides the major rationale for
creation of several levels of management in organisation. This is to be done in a pragmatic basis, taking into account of range of factor such as:
calibre of officer, the degree of complexity and differentiation of task for which the officer is responsible, the abilities and level of understanding of
the subordinates and so on. Proper Span of Control is considered a necessity for effective co-ordination.
2.4.2 Factor Determining Span of Control-

According to Luther Gullick, the proper Span of Control differs from situation to situation, and three factors were especially important. First,
diversification of function, the greater diversification of function of the subordinates, the narrow should be the span of control. Second, factor of
time, in a stable organisation the chief factor can deal with more immediate subordinates than in changing and new organisation. Third, factor of
space, an organisation located in one building can be supervised through more immediate subordinates than the same organisation if scattered in
several cities.
Graicunas’ Formulae-
The French management and consultant, V.A. Graicunas after analysing subordinate- superior relationships, developed mathematical formula. He
suggested that, as the number of subordinate increases arithmetically there is an exponential increase in the number of possible relationships. He
identified three types of relationship namely:

1. Direct Single Relationship- Direct Single Relationship arises from the direct and individual contacts of the superior with his subordinates. For
example, if an officer (A) has two subordinated (B) and (C). There would be a direct relationship between A, B and C.
2. Direct Group Relationship- The relationship arises between the officer and group of his subordinates in all possible combinations. Thus, in the above
example there would be two direct relationships: i) A with B, C in the attendance, and ii) A with C, B in attendance.
3. Cross Relationship- These relationship arise among the subordinate working under a common superior. In the above example, there would be two
cross relationship; i) B with C and, ii) C with B.

2.5 Delegation

Delegation means assignment of work to others and conferring them the requisite authority to accomplish the work assigned and it enables the
executive to distribute the work load to others. Allen has rightly said, “Delegation is the dynamics of management. It is the process of manager
follows in dividing work assigned to him so that he performs that part which only he, because of his unique organisational placement, can performed
 effectively, so that he can get others to help him with what remains”.[74] In words of Koontz and Weihrich, “Authority is delegated when a superior
give a subordinate discretion to make decision”.[75] As Terry has observed, “It is something like imparting knowledge. You share with others who
possess the knowledge, but you still retain the knowledge too”.[76]
Importance of Delegation-
Delegation helps in maintaining healthy relationship between executives and his subordinates by clearly defining the authority and responsibility of
the subordinates. According to Douglas C. Basil, “Delegation can be one of the management’s best techniques for satisfying needs and motivating
subordinates to better performance.

The following are some of the reasons and benefits from delegation:

1. Reduces the Executive’s Burden- An executive is mainly responsible for more work than the amount that he himself can performed. Delegation thus
relieves the executive from performing duties of routine nature which can be safely delegated to the subordinates.
2. Develops Subordinates- Delegation of authority encourage confident and responsibility of decisions taking among the subordinates.
3. Integration of Organisation- Delegation binds formal organisation together. It established superior-subordinate relationship and provide for efficient
functioning of organisation.
4. Foster Expansion and provide Continuity- As through delegation subordinates are adequately developed to take over the superior’s position, the
organisation can be expanded through diversification.

2.5.1 Components of Delegation-

The process of delegation comprises of three components, which are as follows-

1. Entrustment of Responsibility- In order to enable the subordinate to perform his duty well, the superior must clearly tell the former what is expected
of him. In the other word, the superior must clearly determined the tasks or duties assigned to the subordinate. The duties must be either express in
terms of functions or objectives.
 2. Granting of Authority- Authority is the right granted to an individual to make possible the performance of the work assigned. The executive
delegating the authority should also determine what type of authority to be delegated.
3. Creation of Accountability- For accountability to be effective, the standard of performance should be determined before entrusting a task and should
be understood and accepted by the subordinate. The extend of accountability depends upon the extend of delegation of authority and responsibility. A
person cannot be held answerable for the acts not assigned to him by his superior. Accountability cannot be delegated. Since accountability cannot be
delegated the accountability of higher person in hierarchy for the acts of the subordinates is unconditional.

3 PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY

3.1 Unity of command

Unity of command is a basic principle of classical public administration. It means that each subordinate should have one and only one superior, with
orders flowing from and accountability flowing to that single superior. It bases itself on the old proverb that “ no man can serve two master.” This
important principle is drawn from the hierarchical organization characterized by scalar chain running throughout the organization. The scalar chain
provides for a unified command, one head directing the activities of the entire organizations. Thus, the scalar principle contains the concept of unity
of command. Unity of Command is one of the Henri Fayol's 14 principles of Management. This principle states that there must be only one superior
to a subordinate. That is, an employee or a worker must not have many bosses or superiors. If an employee or subordinate has to work under the
influence of many bosses or superiors, then it creates a confusing situation, dilemma and disorder. This also affects overall efficiency, productivity
and profit of the organization.

Thus, according to the principle of unity of command too many heads (bosses or superiors) must not boss or supervise the same amount of work
being done by a worker or an employee. In other words, the work of a worker or job of an employee must always be supervised by a single head. [77]
 The merits or advantages of unity of command are listed as follows:
1. Better relationship among superior and subordinates.
2. Clear and well-organized Authority, Responsibility and Accountability.
3. Reduces and/or avoids duplication of work.
4. Prompt or quick decision making.
5. Good, effective and efficient discipline.
6. Better co-ordination and team work.
7. Boosts morale and positive attitude of workers.
8. Leads to higher productivity of goods and services.

Now let's discuss each benefit or advantage of Unity of Command.

1. Better relationship- Unity of Command helps to develop a clear and better relationship among superior and subordinates.

2. Authority, responsibility and accountability- Unity of command results in a clear and well-organized Authority, Responsibility and Accountability between various
levels of workforce of the organization.

3. Reduces duplication of work- It helps to reduce and/or avoid duplication of work between the various levels of workforce of the organization.

4. Prompt or quick decisions- The Unity Of Command helps managers to take prompt or quick decisions properly.

5. Effective and efficient discipline- The unity of command ensures an effective and efficient discipline within an organization.

6. Better co-ordination and team work- The unity of command ensures better Co-ordination, and Team work in the organization.
 7. Boosts morale and positive attitude- It boosts morale and generates positive attitude among workers in the organization.

8. Higher productivity- The unity of command leads to higher productivity of goods and services. This creates a better image or goodwill of the organization in the
market

3.2 Stability & continuity of command

These classicists considered the principle of unity of command as a major cornerstone in the determination of organization structure. It is of a
supreme importance for a bureaucratic work organization operating under such norms as delegation, specialization and accountability. If a
subordinate is subject to the orders of more than one superior, he will be able to evade orders by playing off one superior against another. Multiple
superiors will not only confuse their subordinates but also eachother. The absence of unity of command will produce conflict,confusion,chaos and
eventually less effective performance in an organization. On the other hand, the presence of unity of command not only avoids such organizational
ills as conflicting orders, internecine warefare and other evils of multiple directions but also fixes clearly responsibility for doing things and facilities
effective supervision. For these reasons, the classical theorists have argued that unity of command is highly essential for an orderly and effective
functioning of an organization. One of the writers of the federalist papers Alexander Hamilton and the great French conqueror napoleon Bonaparte
were the most ardent admirers of the principle of unity of command. Hamilton said,” that unity is conductive to energy will not be disputed.”
Napoleon once said that when it came to fighting a war, he would rather have one bad general than two good generals[78]
3.3 Independence of command of obedience and discipline

"The Discipline of Obedience” “The significance of obedience is not merely that it makes for social order, or that it brings us into line with God's perfect will.
Actually, obedience is a vigorous blow against one of the tyrants that monopolize us - our ego. “He continues, "Obedience means assent to another's right to
command and specific consent to that command. Such assent and consent smite the ego and our selfish pride. ... One of the most constant characteristics of the ego
is its desire to 'run the show', It insists on being boss, 'No one is going to tell me what to do.'"Dr. Day and others have also said, "Obedience is not a habit with
most people because ego is on the throne and refuses to vacate. “We might say it another way. Many allow the Ego to Master them. Sometimes I have mentioned
being enslaved to sin. Many are enslaved and tyrannized by their own ego.[79] Living primarily for our selves, with the attitude that we need not obey God, or His
rules, or His leaders is very simply sin. Don't disguise it as doing your own thing. Albert Day wrote: "We need not fear that the wise practice of obedience will
make puppets out of us. Rather, it makes the real self, more truly master. When the usurping ego is manacled and finally banished, the real self, made in the image
of God, is able to act like a child of God. One becomes a true person when, recognizing God as Lord, both freedom and fulfillment are found in that Lordship."[80]

3.4 Duty of interest

The concept of unity of command comes into conflict with the use of technical experts and specialists in administration. The specialists and technical experts
working in an organization are always subject to dual command and control- one technical and the other administrative. The former is concerned with professional
competence in the performance of job, while the latter is mainly interested in the efficient utilization of the resources of men and materials in doing the job. For
instance , in Andhra Pradesh, a medical and health officer working in a primary health centre working in a primary health centre is under the administrative control
of mandal parishad’s administrative head, viz, mandal development officer. But in technical matters the medical officer works under the direction of the district
medical and health officer. Similar is the case with order technical personnel working in a mandal Parishad or panchayat samithis elsewhere.
Fayol’s principle of unity of command is also against the principle of ‘functional foremanship’ or ‘supervision’ advocated by F.W. Taylor, the father of ‘scientific
management’. Taylor’s functional supervision has as its basis an elaborate sub- division of work by specialized activities. This does violate to unity of command
by placing an indivisual worker under a large number of supervisors, each workman receives his daily order and help directly from eight different bosses. In
taylor’s view this would facilitate specialized and expert supervision in the respect of each function.
 A conflict of interest can be either a real, perceived or potential conflict between the personal or business interests of a Director and the Director's
duty to act in the interests of the public entity. The Board should adhere to the principles specified in the Public Administration Act 2004.Good
practice will be in place if the Board follows the principles for dealing with, and managing, conflicts of interest as set out in section 81(1)(f) of the
Public Administration Act.
There is a real, perceived or potential conflict between:

 The Director's duty to the public entity and his or her duty to another organisation; or
 The public entity's interests and the Director's interests.
For example, the Director may be on the Board of a private sector entity that is in financial difficulty, while also being on the Board of a public entity proposing to
enter a long-term contract with the private sector entity. The Director owes a duty of honesty to the public entity while owing a duty of confidentiality to the
private sector entity. In such a case, the Director is advised to resign from the Board of the public entity as soon as the conflict of duty is clear

3.5 Independence of command and responsibility

The principle of unity of command has been seriously affected by the use of plural headed bodies like ‘boards’ and commissions as heads of administrative
agencies. The increasing number and growing influence of staff and auxiliary agencies also affect unity of command. The old concept of unity of command is
seldom found in the complex modern goverenmental administrative situations. Conceqently , what we are now having is not unity of command, not even duality of
command, but multiplicity of command . A single line of authority may be useful for settling questions of authority, but cannot adequately meet the needs of
modern complex organizations. Thus, Fayol’s principle of unity of command in its pure form is modified in modern administrative practice.[81]
The doctrine of “command responsibility” was established by the Hague Conventions and applied for the first time by the German Supreme Court in
Leipzig after World War I, on the Trial of Emil Muller. The Court for failing to prevent the commission of crimes and to punish the perpetrators of
sentenced Miller. Command responsibility is an omission mode of individual criminal liability: the superior is responsible for crimes committed by
his subordinates and for failing to prevent or punish (as opposed to crimes he ordered). The doctrine was invoked by the International Military
Tribunals after World War II and developed further through international and domestic jurisprudence: inter alia, the High Command, In Re
Yamashita, Hostages and Abbaye Ardenne cases after World War II, and the Medina case dealing with war crimes in Vietnam. By 1977 the doctrine
 of command responsibility was accepted as customary international law and was codified in the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
relating to the International Armed Conflicts. Command responsibility is not directly codified in the Criminal Code of Serbia and Montenegro[82].
Courts in the country have so far abstained from applying the command responsibility provisions of Additional Protocol I, to which SFRY and its
accession state, Serbia and Montenegro, is a Party. Direct application of international treaty law is problematic in domestic criminal proceedings, as
the Constitution sets out the requirement that criminal offences and applicable punishment must be provided for in specific domestic legislation.
Responsibility indicates the duty assigned to a position. The person holding the position has to perform the duty assigned. It is his responsibility. The
term responsibility is often referred to as an obligation to perform a particular task assigned to a subordinate. In an organisation, responsibility is the
duty as per the guidelines issued.
Characteristics of Responsibility

1. The essence of responsibility is the obligation of a subordinate to perform the duty assigned.
2. It always originates from the superior-subordinate relationship.
3. Normally, responsibility moves upwards, whereas authority flows downwards.
4. Responsibility is in the form of a continuing obligation.
5. Responsibility cannot be delegated.
6. The person accepting responsibility is accountable for the performance of assigned duties.
7. It is hard to conceive responsibility without authority.

4 Conclusion
Public Administration is a newly emerged discipline compare to other Social Science’s discipline. Public Administration has gained immense
importance since the emergence of Administrative state. In Ancient Greek, Roman and Indian political system gave more importance to the concept
of Administration. Kautilys’s “Arthasathra” contributed large scale in the administrative system; it deals every aspect of the state and its relation to
subjects. In simple sense Public Administration is state mechanism.
The universality of public administration in the modern world has led to the mistaken belief that accountability and fairness in administration can be
achieved everywhere through the same practices, laws, and institutions. Policymakers and scholars have failed to recognize that the choice between a
constitution that concentrates authority in one government body -- parliament -- and a separation of powers constitution that disperses authority
among independent public institutions has far-reaching ramifications for the design of good public administration. The first choice, whether to
concentrate or disperse authority, is often not a choice at all but rather a result dictated by the need to guarantee certain communities within a polity
permanent institutional expression and power in the lawmaking process. The second choice, how to foster accountable and fair government
administration, is indeed a choice and one that should be made wisely.
Accountability in public administration is guaranteed by the power to appoint and remove governments in parliamentary governments, by
independent parliamentary oversight activities and administrative procedure in separation of powers governments. Fairness and interest group
representation in public administration is promoted through informal consultation between government officials and interest groups in parliamentary
governments, through legal rights to information, participation, and judicial review in separation of powers governments.
Public administration helps people and makes a positive impact on society. They are organizations and agencies that apply and control different areas
of society. It creates and changes public policy programs to respond to the needs and interests of our nation. Every aspect of our daily lives is
impacted in some way by the actions of the federal, state, or local bureaucracies that manage and organize the public life of its citizens. Public
Administration controls everything from the way we travel, our health, our education, etc.
Historically, Governments have attempted to develop sound governance and public administration to support social, political and economic
development. However, changing in political and economic context have made it increasingly difficult to determine what constitute the principles,
foundations, quality and effectiveness of public administration. Over the past few decades, the principle and foundations of public administration
have experienced a radical transformation, owing to two major changes in the world. First, democratic states now outnumber their non-democratic
counterparts, establishing a significant precedent in world history. This global movement for democratic governance has been pursued not only as a
value in and of itself, but also highlighted the need to foster greater interaction among three sets of actors in the process of governance: those from
government organization, the civil society and the private sector.
Secondly, the rapid pace of globalization has exerted new pressures on the public sector to increase its skills and capacity to deal with new challenges
and opportunities, such as new information and communication technologies(ICT), the expansion of trade and investment, an increased focus on
public goods such as the environment and human rights, and the proactive role of global institutions such as the World Trade Organization that affect
development processes at the country level.

3.0 Principles of Public Administration.

Public administration is a complex process, it involves social, economical, legal and political matters al interwoven together. Due to the complexity of its nature, management and
regulation of the public sector becomes a hurdle. In order for the public administration to be well regulated and governed bracket laws had to be implemented to cover all spheres
and aspects of the sector. A unifying common law to govern public sector has been a very controversial issue in the U.S, this could be accrued to the governors’ reluctance to be
restricted by statutes which could tether the added advantages associated with the public sector. With time however, due to emerge of democratic tendencies elements that initiate
good management and governance have been embraced. Political evolution has led to accord on the key principles that can be implemented to ensure that the services delivered to
the public by the government are excellent.
The key identified principles are:-

3.1. Reliability and predictability: This principle declares that in order for the government initiative in form of services or practice to be deemed as satisfactory it must be reliable by
being consisted and accurate in meeting the potential needs for which it was intended for. The government programs should be predictable a factor that can only be attained through
consisted effort whereby the government agencies in charge of the programs don’t fluctuate in executing their duties in a systematic manner. On the same note the programs
implemented by the government to serve the needs of public should have legal certainty or judicial security.

3.2. Openness and transparency: The government serves the society through tax levies and other customs exerted on them through added costs. In return, the government is
supposed to govern the obtained resources, plan and allocate them to various public programs in order to satisfy the public needs better. The public is aware that the government
derives its funds from their resources, so it becomes increasingly important for the public to know hoe the government tis using their resources to sponsor public programs. In order
for the public to trust the government of the day, the government avails all the necessary details concerning the programs so that the government doesn’t appear to have creepy
motives

3.3. Accountability: The government sponsored programs are normally accountable for all activities and procedures carried out in their programs which are geared towards public
satisfaction. Accountability, per se is whereby the government justifies the actions it pursues in its endeavor to serve the public and at the same time taking responsibility for the
actions it pursues in achieving its objectives whether they have positive or negative implications.

3.4. Efficiency and effectiveness: Efficiency is a principle employed by the government sponsored programs to ensure that all the resources at the disposal of the government are
utilized without wastage of time, increased expense or effort wastage. When the government embraces efficiency in its procedures it becomes effectual in meeting public needs
without wasting time or effort or expense.
Public administration ideals and doctrine principles have enhanced better performance in public sector creating union amongst the many areas that need to be administered properly
in order to serve the public better. In the U.S the government has been able to embrace the key principles vital for ensuing that all the programs that serve public interest run
coherently and are able to meet the desired needs of the public. Each sector served by the government becomes effective in meeting the social needs by embracing the principles of
public administration.

The principle of transparency has been embraced in the educational realm by allowing the public to have access to government reports concerning educational
matters. The involvement of the general public in school governance through educational boards has helped a great deal in enhancing the educational program
efficiency in meeting the needs of the citizens as well.