6 Important Phases of the “Study of Public

Administration" (Historical Background)

Article shared by <="" div="">

Broadly speaking there are six phases of its development:

First Phase—1887-1926:

Prof. Woodrow Wilson is said to be the father of discipline. In his article entitled “The Study of
Administration (1887)”, he emphasized the need for a separate study of Public Administration as
a distinct from Political Science. He thus initiated Politics-Administration dichotomy which
dominated the scene for quite some time.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In 1900 Good now published his work ‘Politics of Administration’ in which he developed this
idea further. He said that Politics has to be concerned with the laying down of the policies which
administration has to execute.
In 1914 American Political Science Association published a report recognizing Public
Administration as an important sub-area of Political Science.

In 1926, L.D. White wrote the first text book on the subject by, ‘Introduction to the Study of
Public Administration.’ It stressed the point that politics and administration are two different
activities and the latter has to emphasize efficiency and economy in executing policies.

Second Phase—1927-1937:

The dominant theme of the period was principles of Public Administration. The main belief was
that there are certain principles of administration and the main thrust was to try to discover them
and apply them.

In 1927, W.F. Willoughby wrote ‘Principle of Administration’ followed by a number of

publications, e.g. H. Fayol’s ‘Industrial and General Management’; Mooney and Reiley’s
‘Principles of Organisation’, Mary Parker Foulet’s ‘Creative Experience’, Gullick and Urwick
published ‘Papers on Science and Administration’ (1937), they coined the acronym
POSDCORB.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Scientific management to efficiently manage the business of administration was emphasized.

Politics as practiced by politicians became irrelevant structure and process of organisation was
put to rigorous analysis.

This period is called the Golden Age of Principles and in this period Public administration
achieved high degree of respectability. Its products were in great demand.

Third Phase—1938-1947:

The universality of the principles of administration was soon challenged. It was a period of
continuous and mounting challenge and questioning.

Chester I. Bernard in his ‘The Functions of the Executive’ (1938) did not uphold the stand taken
by earlier writers.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Herbert Simon ‘The Proverbs of (article) Administration’ (1946) 4Administration Behaviour’

(1947) held that there is no such thing as principles of administration, what have been taken as to
be such principles are in fact Proverbs of administration.

In 1947 Robert Dahl also challenged the proposition that Public administration is a science on
following grounds:

(a) Science is value-free, but administration cannot be so

(b) Human personalities differ

(c) Social framework differ

Fourth Phase—1947-1970:

This period had been one of crises for the public administration. The brave new world promised
by the thinkers of the ‘Principles’ era stood shattered and future appeared to be little uncertain.
The rise of new nations added to the problem.

Many scholars wanted to return to the fold of the mother science viz., Political Science but found
that there was domination of Political Science over Administration.

They also felt that the political science not only discouraged the appearance of the Public
administration as a separate discipline but did not encourage the growth and development of the
discipline within its own fold.

Public Administration however enhanced its relation with other disciplines and outcome was
Comparative Public Administration—1952 Development Public Administration—1953

Fifth Phase—1970-1990:

The scientific or logical positivist approaches robbed public administration of its goal making,
welfare and social justice available to the man, woman, children in the course of achieving
overall socio-economic development.

Outcome was Minnow brook conference in 1968 and the birth of New Public Administration. It
was also thought that the generation gap between the practitioners of the Public Administration
was also creating a lag.

The term New Public Administration gained greater currency with two publications in 1971,
namely.

i. “Towards a New Public Administration : Minnowbrook Perspective” edited by Frank Marini

(1971)

ii. “Public Administration in a time of Turbulence” edited by Duright Waldo (1971) However,
the seeds of these publications can be located in

1. The Honey Report of Higher Education for Public Service 1967.

2. The Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration 1967

Chief Features of the New Public Administration:

The chief characteristics of New Public Administration are

1. Relevance:

There had been renewed emphasis on being sensitive to the societal problems. The scholars were
of the opinion that Public Administration cannot be instrumental in vacuum. Instead it should
actively engage itself in the problem confronting society.

2. Values:

New Public Administration brought values back into the realm of Public Administration. It
emphasized on achieving right things in the right way through right techniques.

3. Equity:

The performance of public administration was to be judged not in terms of growth but it had to
be sensitive to the aspect of equity. It had to see that no one was left behind in the affairs tackled
by administration.

4. Change:

As opposed to status quo, the new Public Administration emphasized change. It included
reorientation of policy issues and decisions, affecting citizens.

The concept of cutback management was ushered with emphasis on terminating unneeded or
ineffective organisation.

An active and participative citizenry is recognized as the benchmark for effective public
Administration.

George Frederickson in ‘New Public Administration’, 1980 points out “organizations function
fundamentally in the realm of values”, The New Public Administration was concerned with
client ‘needs as expectations’ as well as assessment of impact of program’s effects. This required
involvement of values in the policy making process.

Freedom and individual dignity were to be protected through administration.

Sixth Phase—1991-Till Today:

However the so called NPA movement, which had triggered hopes and aspirations of the
Negroes and feminists in America, proved to be monstrously unsuccessful in catering to the
expectations of the socially deprived class.

At the Boston Annual Conference (1987) of the American Society of Public Administration, it
was decided to hold Minnowbrook conference II in 1985 to facilitate a general examination of
the future of Public Administration and to determine whether important discipline differences
exist between people who entered Public Administration in 1960’s and those who entered in the
1980’s.
Watergate Scandal increased the already existing cyculcism towards government, and propelled
the students to think in terms of ‘less of government’ moves to cut out waste corruption and
control over bureaucracy was emphasized. The concept of positive state started giving way to
regulatory state.

More privatization, contracting out more voluntarism, more third party government became
watchwords.

In 1994 a conference of Common Association for Public Administration and Management in

Canada synthesized the foundation of New Public Management.

It seeks to reorient the public administration to suit the changing dynamics brought about by
liberalisation and Globalization. The theoretical formulations of New Public Management were
concretized in work of J.V. Ostram “Calculus of a Concept” etc.

The study and practice of public administration has taken many strides from classical, politics,
administration dichotomy to contemporary New Public Management.

Apart from certain setbacks on account of its temptations to be exclusive, it has shown results. If
it is to remain relevant in the Globalized world, Public Administration needs to take cognizance
of multidimensional aspect of administration.

It needs to acquaint itself with new tools to analyze the impact of culture and ethos of the society
where it is instrumental. This has become more warranted in a globalized world.

Home ››

Related Essays:

1. Difference between Public Administration and Private Administration

2. Relationship of Public Administration with Politics – Essay
3. Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration – Essay
4. What is the Scope of Public Administration?
5. Relationship of Public Administration with Business Management – Essay
6. Essay on Comparative Study in Public Administration