The genesis of Public administration as an academic discipline can be traced back to Wilson’s essay ” The study of Administration ” in 1887. Over the next 100-odd years it evolved through several paradigms based on the locus and focus. In an attempt to define its locus and focus it was linked, delinked, and relinked from its mother discipline of Political science and its parallel or alter ego or sister discipline of Management studies. In this process the meaning, scope, nature and significance of Public administration continuously ” evolved, changed and even shifted “ depending on the locus and focus of the subject. Therefore Public administration doesn’t have a unanimous definition or fixed boundaries (scope) or defined orientation (nature).
In this context, F.C.Moser Observed ” Perhaps it is best if Public Administration is not defined. It is more an area of interest rather than a discipline, more an emphasis rather than a separate science. It is necessarily cross-disciplinary. The overlapping and vague boundaries of public administration should be viewed as a resource rather than an irritant “.
Robert T. Golembiewski attempted to explain the evolution of public administration as an academic discipline through the terms ” locus and focus “. According to him, the locus is ” institutional where ” and the focus is ” specialized what “. He divided the period of evolution into 5 paradigms based on the association of public administration with the locus and focus.
- Paradigm 1 – Political Administration Dichotomy [1900 – 1926 ]
- Paradigm 2 – Era of principles of administration [ 1927 – 1937 ]
- Paradigm 3 – Public Administration as Political Science [ 1950 – 1970 ]
- Paradigm 4 – Public Administration as Management [ 1956 – 1970 ]
- Paradigm 5 – Public Administration as Public Administration [ 1970 …]
Nicholas Henry borrowed these five paradigms and came up with a more widely accepted sequence of paradigms based on the elaborate definition of locus and focus. They are
- Paradigm 1 – Political Administration Dichotomy [ 1887/1900 – 1926 ]
- Paradigm 2 – Era of principles of administration [ 1927 – 1937 ]
- Sub-Paradigm 1 – Era of Challenges [ 1938 – 1950 ]
- Sub-Paradigm 2 – Response to challenges [ 1950 – 1970 ]
- Paradigm 3 – Public Administration as Political Science [ 1950 – 1970 ]
- Paradigm 4 – Public Administration as Management [ 1956 – 1970 ]
- Paradigm 5 – Public Administration as Public Administration [ 1970 …]
- Paradigm 6 – Public Administration as Governance [ 1980 …]
Paradigm 1 – Political Administration Dichotomy [ 1887/1900 – 1926 ]
This era began when Woodrow Wilson’s seminal essay ” The study of Administration “ was published in political science quarterly in 1887. This essay laid the foundation for a systematic study of public administration. He highlighted the need to study Public administration as a separate discipline and the dichotomy of politics and administration.
He argued that administration and politics are separate. The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics… Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions and Politics is the special province of the statesman and administration that of technical officials.
This ” Wilsonian Dichotomy “ was reinforced and supported by Frank J. Goodnow when he published ” Politics and Administration “. In this context, Goodnow observed,” politics has to do with policies or expression of the will of the state while the administration has to do with the execution of those politics “.
In this era, Public administration received its academic legitimacy when Leonard D. White published his book ” An introduction to the study of Public Administration “. This book is considered the 1st textbook on the subject of Public Administration as a discipline. This book focused on two things
- Politics administration dichotomy
- There is a possibility of value-free science which can be found through scientific study of administration with an aim to improve efficiency and economy
Thus his book provided a smooth thematic transition between the Era of political administration dichotomy and the era of principles of administration.
Paradigm 2 – Era of principles of administration [ 1927 – 1937 ]
This era began when William Willoughby wrote the book ” Principles of Administration “ in 1927. This is the 2nd full-fledged textbook on the discipline of Public Administration after L. D. White’s ” An introduction to the study of administration “. This book focused on 4 things
- Scientific principles of administration existed
- They can be discovered
- They can be learnt
- They can impart efficiency to the administration
During this era, many other scholarly works were published with ‘ finding scientific principles ‘ in mind. They were
- Creative Experience by Mary Parker Follet
- Industrial and General Management by Henry Fayol
- Principles of Organisation by Mooney and Riley
- Papers of Science of Administration by Gullick and Urwick in 1937 marked the zenith or high-noon of this era
Henry Fayol came up with 5 principles of management – Planning, Organizing, Command, Coordination and Control and coined ” POCCC “.
Gullick borrowed and came up with a popular catchphrase ” POSDCoRB “ – Planning, Organization, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, reporting, Budgeting in his book ” Notes on the theory of Organisation ” jointly edited by Urwick.
Later on, Urwick came up with a list of 29 administrative principles in his book ” Elements of Administration “. Therefore this paradigm was the golden years of ” principles and techniques ” in the evolution of Public Administration.
This paradigm also narrowly focused on the ” efficiency or administration ” part of public administration and ignored the ” public “ aspect of public administration. It was suggested let us take care of the efficiency of administration and public in public administration would be automatically taken care of. Therefore, this stage can be called the stage of orthodoxy.
It was argued, ” Principles are principles and administration is administration “. These principles were viewed as “ready-made aides “ and ” readily applicable tools “ for efficiency in administration. Therefore this era is also called as ” search for universal principles “. However, the idea of universal principles faced multiple challenges in the 1930s and 1940s along the following lines
- Humanistic Challenge
- Behaviourist Challenge
- Broad Basing Challenge
Sub-Paradigm 1 – Era of Challenges [ 1938 – 1950 ]
Humanistic Challenge
The human relation approach to the study of administration challenged the structural theory approach of administration after Hawthorne Experiment conducted by Elton Mayo at the Western electric company in Chicago. The conclusion of the experiment shook the foundation of classic theories and developed into the Human relation movement of the 1930s.
The human relations approach concluded relationship aspect of informal groups and human relations are more important to the efficiency of an organisation than the structural aspect of the organisation.
Behaviouralist Challenge
In 1938 Chester Barnard wrote the book ” The Functions of the executive “. Later on, the theme of this book was further extended by Herbert Simon in his book ” Administrative behaviour “ in 1947. These theories were called behavioural theories.
Behavioural thinkers Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon argued to give more importance to the behavioural aspect of human beings over the structural aspect of organisation for efficiency.
Further, Simon presented a devastating criticism of principles of administration as ” mere slogans, myths and proverbs “. He rejected the two foundations pillars of classical theories
- Politics-administration dichotomy
- Scientific principles of Administration focused solely on efficiency
In this context Simon argued ” Administration should be concerned with the development of pure science of administration ” ( with grounding on psychology ) and ” Administration should deal with a broad range of values and working out a prescription for the public “. Thus suggestions of Simon amounted to ” Swallowing up the whole discipline of Political Science “.
Broad Basing Challenge
Robert Dahl and Simon were of the view the universality aspect of principles would be a mistake unless broad-based experimentation is carried out to test their applicability across various situations.
Robert Dahl rejected the science of administration and sought to give a new dimension to the evolution of Public Administration in a broad-based manner in his essay ” The Science of Public Administration: Three problems “ in 1947. He raised three objections in the present study of Public Administration
- Exclusion of normative consideration
- In other words, he was against the exclusions of norms or values in administration i.e he was against the dichotomy
- Science of administration without human elements like psychology, behavioural and human relations
- In this context, he argued, “the inescapable fact that science of administration must be a study of certain aspects of human behaviour “. He criticized the machine model of classical theories and suggested ” Principles concerning process or structures for seeking efficiency can not be detached from humanistic or behavioural consideration and therefore administration must study the whole psychological man “
- Conceptualization of ‘ Universal Principles ‘ from parochial experience
- Referring to many Sciences of administration he remarked there may be a science of administration for America, German, and France but not a Science of Public Administration. For instance, Henry Fayol’s 14 principles may at best be the Science of French Administration. Therefore for the Universal principle of the science of administration, there needs to be an interdisciplinary approach to the study of public administration, Which was also suggested by Herbert Simon.
- In this context he quoted ” The study of Public Administration inevitably must become a much more broadly based discipline, resting not on narrowly defined knowledge of techniques and processes, but rather extending to the varying historical, sociological, economic and other conditioning factors “
In this context, Ferrel Heady noted ” Robert Dahl’s priority was to work towards conceptualizing broad-based principles of administration and of administrative behaviour transcending national boundaries “.
As a result of these challenges, Public administration faced an identity crisis. Many questioned the strong management orientation as well as the dichotomy which were the dominant themes of paradigm 2 and paradigm 1 respectively. Therefore these two defining pillars were abandoned in the 1950s by scholars and merged Public Administration with either political science or management until Public administration emerged with its own identity as New Public Administration in the 1970s.