0% found this document useful (0 votes)
212 views10 pages

Henry 1975

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 10

Paradigms of Public Administration

Author(s): Nicholas Henry


Source: Public Administration Review , Jul. - Aug., 1975, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug.,
1975), pp. 378-386
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/974540

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/974540?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
378

Paradigms of Public Administration

Nicholas Henry, University of Georgia

Public administration again is examining it- * Five paradigms of public administration are
sketched in an effort to indicate that the notion of
self.1 Given the history of the field, this exercise
public administration as a unique, synthesizing field is
probably is a sign of health. While self-scrutiny can
relatively new. The discipline is conceived as an
be overdone-the late mathematician, John von amalgam of organization theory, management science,
Neumann, once described the state of a discipline and the concept of the public interest. It is suggested
that had become far too involved with self-study that it is time for public administration to establish
by coining the term "baroquism"-a reexamina- itself as an institutionally autonomous enterprise in
colleges and universities in order to retain its social
tion by public administrationists of where the field relevance and worth.
has been and where it is going appears worthwhile.
As an intellectual enterprise, public administration
has reached a point of radical departure from its
own past. is with these reasons in mind that we should turn
It is my purpose in this article to: (1) sketch to a reconsideration of the trite yet worthy
the development of the field by describing four question of "What is public administration?"
broad paradigms of American public administra-
tion, (2) speculate on what the emerging paradigm
of public administration may turn out to be, and Public Administration's Eighty Years
(3) attempt to justify why it is mandatory that in a Quandary
public administration "come into its own" as an
identifiable, unique, and institutionally inde- Public administration's development as an aca-
pendent field of instruction, research, and prac- demic field may be conceived as a succession of
tice. four overlapping paradigms. As Robert T.
"Paradigm" no doubt is an overworked word.2 Golembiewski has noted in a perceptive essay on
Nevertheless, it is a useful one because there is no the evolution of the field,4 each phase may be
other term that conveys the concept of a field's characterized according to whether it has "locus"
self-identity and the changing dynamics of that or "focus." Locus is the institutional "where" of
identity. Paradigmatic questions are of especial the field. A recurring locus of public administra-
significance in public administration. With ap- tion is the government bureaucracy, but this has
proximately 90 per cent of all advanced degree not always been the case and often this traditional
graduates in public administration going into locus has been blurred. Focus is the specialized
government employment,3 with roughly one-in-six "what" of the field. One focus of public adminis-
members of the American labor force working for tration has been the study of certain "principles of
one government or another, and with administra- administration," but, again, the foci of the disci-
tive-profession-technical personnel the major pline have altered with the changing paradigms of
growth factor in public service hiring practices, it public administration. As Golembiewski observes,
follows that the way in which public administra- the paradigms of public administration may be
tion defines itself will determine to a profound understood in terms of locus or focus; when one
degree the manner in which government works. It has been relatively sharply defined, the other has
been relatively ignored in academic circles and
The author wishes to express his thanks to Professors
vice-versa. We shall use the notion of loci and foci
Robert T. Golembiewski and Frank Thompson, both of
the University of Georgia, for their helpful critiques of in reviewing the intellectual development of public
this article. Final responsibility is, of course, the author's. administration.

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PARADIGMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 379

Paradigm 1: The Politics/Administration White's text was quintessentially American Pro-


Dichotomy, 1900-1926 gressive in character and, in its quintessence,
reflected the general thrust of the field: Politics
should not intrude on administration; management
Our benchmark dates for the Paradigm 1 period
lends itself to scientific study; public administra-
correspond to the publication of books writtention
by is capable of becoming a "value-free" science
Frank J. Goodnow and Leonard D. White; they in its own right; the mission of administration is
are, as are the years chosen as marking the later
economy and efficiency, period.
periods of the field, only rough indicators. In The net result of Paradigm 1 was to strengthen
Politics and Administration (1900), Goodnow
the notion of a distinct politics/administration
contended that there were "two distinct functions
dichotomy by relating it to a corresponding
of government," which he identified with the title value/fact dichotomy. Thus, everything that public
of his book. Politics, said Goodnow, "has to do administrationists scrutinized in the executive
with policies or expressions of the state will," branch was imbued with the colorings and legiti-
while administration "has to do with the execu- macy of being somehow "factual" and "scien-
tion of these policies."5 Separation of powerstific," while the study of public policy making and
provided the basis of the distinction; the legislativerelated matters was left to the political scientists.
branch, aided by the interpretive abilities of the The carving up of analytical territory between
judicial branch, expressed the will of the state and public administrationists and political scientists
formed policy, while the executive branch admin- during this locus-oriented stage can be seen today
istered those policies impartially and apolitically. in political science departments: it is the public
The emphasis of Paradigm 1 was on locus- administrationists who teach organization theory,
where public administration should be. Clearly, inbudgeting, and personnel, while political scientists
the view of Goodnow and his fellow publicteach virtually everything else.
administrationists, public administration should
center in the government's bureaucracy. The initial Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration,
conceptual legitimation of this locus-centered 1927-1937
definition of the field, and one that would wax
increasingly problematic for academics and practi- In 1927 F. W. Willoughby's book, Principles of
tioners alike, became known as the politics/admin-Public Administration, was published as the
istration dichotomy. second fully fledged text in the field. While
Public administration received its first serious Willoughby's Principles was as fully American
attention from scholars during this period largely Progressive in tone as White's Introduction, its title
as a result of the "public service movement" that alone indicated the new thrust of public adminis-
was taking place in American universities in the tration: that certain scientific principles of admin-
early part of this century. Political science, as a istration were "there," that they could be dis-
report issued in 1914 by the Committee on covered, and that administrators would be expert
Instruction in Government of the American Politi- in their work if they learned how to apply these
cal Science Association stated, was concerned with principles.
training for citizenship, professional preparations Public administrationists were in high demand
such as law, and training "experts and to prepare during the 1930s and early 1940s for their
specialists for governmental positions."6 Public managerial knowledge, courted by industry and
administration, therefore, was a clear and signifi- government alike. Thus the focus of the field-its
cant subfield of political science, and political essential expertise in the form of administrative
science departments in universities were perceived principles-waxed, while no one thought too seri-
as the logical place in which to train public ously about its locus. Indeed, the locus of public
administrators.
administration was everywhere, since principles
Public administration began picking up aca- were principles, and administration was adminis-
demic legitimacy in the 1920s; notable in this tration, at least according to the perceptions of
regard was the publication of Leonard D. White's Paradigm 2. Furthermore, because public adminis-
Introduction to the Study of Public Administra- trationists had contributed as much if not more to
tion in 1926, the first textbook devoted in toto to the formulation of "administrative principles" as
the field. As Dwight Waldo has pointed out,7 had researchers in any other field in inquiry, it also

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
380 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

that there could be no such thing as a "principle"


followed that public administrationists should lead
of administration. In 1946 and 1947, a spate of
the academic pack in applying them to "real-
world" organizations, public or otherwise.8 articles and books by Robert A. Dahl, Simon,
Waldo, and others appeared that addressed the
The "high noon of orthodoxy," as it often has
been called, of public administration was marked
validity of the principles concept from a variety of
by the publication in 1937 of Luther H. Gulick
perspectives. 1 The most formidable disection of
and Lyndall Urwick's Papers on the Sciencetheofprinciples notion appeared in 1947: Simon's
Administration. Principles were importantAdministrative
to Behavior. Simon effectively dem-
Gulick and Urwick, but where those principles
onstrated that for every "principle" of administra-
tion advocated in the literature there was a
were applied was not; focus was favored over
locus, and no bones were made about it. As counter-principle, thus rendering the very idea of
Urwick said in the Papers, principles moot.
By mid-century, the two defining pillars of
It is the general thesis of this paper that there are
public administration-the politics/administration
principles which can be arrived at inductively from the
study of human organization which should govern ar- dichotomy and the principles of administration-
rangements for human association of any kind. These had been toppled and abandoned by creative
principles can be studied as a technical question, irrespec- intellects in the field. This abandonment left
tive of the purpose of the enterprise, the personnel public administration bereft of a distinct episte-
comprising it, or any constitutional, political or social
mological identity. Some would argue that an
theory underlying its creation.9
identity has yet to be found.
That was public administration in 1937.
The Reaction to the Challenge, 1947-1950
The Challenge, 1938-1950
In the same year that Simon razed the tradi-
In the following year, mainstream, top-of-the tional foundations of public administration in
heap public administration received its first real Administrative Behavior, he offered an alternative
hint of conceptual challenge. In 1938, Chester I. to the old paradigms in a little-noted essay entitled
Barnard's The Functions of the Executive ap- "A Comment on 'The Science of Public Adminis-
peared. Its impact on public administration was tration,' " published in the Public Administration
not overwhelming at the time, but it later had Review. For Simon, a new paradigm for public
considerable influence on Herbert A. Simon when administration meant that there ought to be two
he was writing his devastating critique of the field, kinds of public administrationists working in
Administrative Behavior. harmony and reciprocal intellectual stimulation:
Dissent from mainstream public administration those scholars concerned with developing "a pure
accelerated in the 1940s and took two mutually science of administration" based on "a thorough
reenforcing directions. One was the objection that grounding in social psychology," and a larger
politics and administration could never be separ- group concerned with "prescribing for public
ated in any remotely sensible fashion. The other policy," and which would resurrect the then-
was that the principles of administration were unstylish field of political economy. Both a "pure
logically inconsistent. science of administration" and "prescribing for
Although inklings of dissent began in the public policy" would be mutually reenforcing
1930s, a book of readings in the field, Elements of components: "there does not appear to be any
Public Administration, edited in 1946 by Fritz reason why these two developments in the field of
Morstein Marx, was one of the first major volumes public administration should not go on side by
which questioned the assumption that politics and side, for they in no way conflict or contradict."' 2
administration could be dichotomized. Perhaps the Despite a proposal that was both rigorous and
most succinct statement articulating this new normative in its emphasis, Simon's call for a "pure
awareness was expressed by John Merriman Gaus science" put off many scholars in public adminis-
in 1950: "A theory of public administration tration and political science alike. First, Simon's
means in our time a theory of politics also."'1 urging that social psychology provided the basis
Arising simultaneously with the challenge to for understanding administrative behavior struck
the traditional politics/administration dichotomy many public administrationists as foreign and
of the field was an even more basic contention: discomfiting; most of them had no training in

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PARADIGMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 381

social psychology. Second, since science was per-


and social science both, it was increasingly evident
ceived as being "value-free," it followed that a
that political science was held in low esteem by
"science of administration" logically wouldscholars
ban in other fields. The formation of the
public administrationists from what many of National
them Science Foundation in 1950 brought the
perceived as their richest sources of inquiry:
message to all who cared to listen that the chief
normative political theory, the concept of the science agency considered political science
federal
to be the distinctly junior member of the social
public interest, and the entire spectrum of human
sciences, and in 1953 David Easton confronted
values. In sum, then, public administrationists
thisto
faced the worrisome prospect of retooling only lack of status directly in his influential book,
become a technically oriented "pure science" The
thatPolitical System. 5
might lose touch with political and social realities
Paradigm 3: Public Administration as Political
in an effort to cultivate an engineering mentality
for public administration. Science, 1950-1970
There was also a more positive rationale for
In any event, as a result of these concerns
scholars in public administration to retain their
linkages with political science; i.e., the logical
public administrationists remained in political sci-
ence departments. The result was a renewed
conceptual connection between public administra-
tion and political science: that is, the public
definition of locus-the governmental bureau-
policy-making process. Public administrationcracy-but
con- a corresponding loss of focus. Should
sidered the "black box" of that process: thethe
mechanics of budgets and personnel proce-
formulation of public policies within public bu-be studied exclusively? Or should public
dures
reaucracies and their delivery to the polity. Politi-
administrationists consider the grand philosophic
cal science was perceived as considering the schemata of the "administrative Platonists," as one
"inputs and outputs" of the process: the pressures political scientist called them, such as Paul
Appleby? 6 Or should they explore quite new
in the polity generating political and social change.
fields of inquiry, as urged by Simon, as they
Hence, there was a carrot as well as a stick inducing
public administrationists to stay within the homey related to the analysis of organizations and deci-
confines of the mother discipline. sion making? In brief, this third phase of defini-
Political scientists, for their part, had begun tiontowas largely an exercise in reestablishing the
resist the growing independence of public adminis- linkages between public administration and politi-
trationists and to question the field's action cal science. But the consequences of this exercise
orientation as early as the mid-1930s. Political was to "define away" the field, at least in terms of
scientists, rather than advocating a public service its analytical focus, its essential "expertise." Thus,
and executive preparatory program as they had in writings on public administration in the 1950s
1914, began calling for, in the words of Lynton K. spoke of the field as an "emphasis," an "area of
Caldwell, "intellectualized understanding" of the interest," or even as a "synonym" of political
executive branch, rather than "knowledgeable science.1 7 Public administration, as an identifiable
action" on the part of public administrators.13 In field of study, began a long, downhill spiral.
1952 an article appeared in the American Political Things got relatively nasty by the end of the
Science Review advocating the "continuing domin- decade and, for that matter, well into the 1960s.
ion of political science over public administra- In 1962, public administration was not included as
tion.," 4
a subfield of political science in the report of the
By the post-World War II era, political scientists Committee on Political Science as a Discipline of
could ill afford the breakaway of the subfield the American Political Science Association. In
which still provided their greatest drawing card for 1964 a major survey of political scientists indi-
student enrollments and government grants. The cated that the Public Administration Review was
discipline was in the throes of being shaken slipping in prestige among political scientists rela-
conceptually by the "behavioral revolution" that tive to other journals, and signalled a decline of
had occurred in other social sciences. Political faculty interest in public administration general-
scientists were aware that not only public adminis- ly. 8 In 1967, public administration disappeared
trationists had threatened secession in the past, as an organizing category in the program of the
but now other subfields, such as international annual meeting of the American Political Science
relations, were restive. And, in terms of science Association. Waldo wrote in 1968 that, "The truth

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
382 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

is that the attitude of political scientists ... is involvement


at in social psychology, its concern with
best one of indifference and is often one of the "opening up" of organizations, and the "self-
undisguised contempt or hostility. We are now actualization" of their members, organization de-
hardly welcome in the house of our youth."' 9 velopment
A was seen by many younger public
survey conducted in 1972 of the five major administrationists as offering a very tempting
alternative for conducting research on public
political science journals of a non-specialized
nature indicated that only four per cent of all bureaucracies
the but within the framework of admin-
articles published between 1960 and 1970 could istrative science: democratic values could be con-
sidered, normative concerns could be broached,
be included in the category of "bureaucratic
politics," which was the only category of the 15 and intellectual rigor and scientific methodologies
could be employed.22
possible that related directly to public administra-
tion.2 But there was a problem in the administrative
science route, and a real one. If it were selected as
Paradigm 4: Public Administration as the sole focus of public administration, could one
Administrative Science, 1956-1970 continue to speak of public administration? After
all, administrative science, while not advocating
Partly because of the "undisguised contempt" universal principles, nevertheless did and does
being displayed in a number of political science contend that all organizations and managerial
departments, some public administrationists began methodologies have certain characteristics, pat-
searching for an alternative. Although Paradigm 4 terns, and pathologies in common. If only admin-
occurred roughly concurrently with Paradigm 3 in istrative science defined the field's paradigm, then
time and never has received the broadly based public administration would exchange, at best,
favor that political science has garnered from being an "emphasis" in political science depart-
public administrationists as a paradigm (although ments for being, at best, a subfield in schools of
its appeal is growing), the administrative science administrative science. This often would mean in
practice that schools of business administration
option (a phrase inclusive of organization theory
and management science) nonetheless is a viable would absorb the field of public administration;
alternative for a significant number of scholars in whether profit-conscious "B-school types" could
public administration. But in both the political adequately appreciate the vital value of the public
science and administrative science paradigms, the interest as an aspect of administrative science was
essential thrust was one of public administration a question of genuine importance to public admin-
losing its identity and its uniqueness within the istrationists, and one for which the probable
confines of some "larger" concept. As a paradigm, answers were less than comforting.
administrative science provides a focus but not a Part of this conceptual dilemma, but only part,
locus. It offers techniques that require expertise lay in the traditional distinction between the
and specialization, but in what institutional setting "public" and "private" spheres of American socie-
that expertise should be applied is undefined. As ty. What is public administration, what is every-
in Paradigm 2, administration is administration thing else (i.e., "private" administration), and
wherever it is found; focus is favored over locus. what is the dividing line between the two types has
A number of developments, often stemming been a painful dilemma for a number of years.
from the country's business schools, fostered the As most of us know, "real world" phenomena
alternative paradigm of administrative science. In are making the public/private distinction an in-
1956, the important journal, Administrative Sci- creasingly difficult one to define empirically,
ence Quarterly, was founded by a public adminis- irrespective of academic disputations. The research
trationist on the premise that public, business, and and development contract, the "military-industrial
institutional administration were false distinctions, complex," the roles of the regulatory agencies and
that administration was administration. Public their relations with industry, and the growing
Administrationist Keith M. Henderson, among expertise of government agencies in originating
others, argued in the mid-1960s that organization and developing advanced managerial techniques
theory was, or should be, the overarching focus of that were and are influencing the "private sector"
public administration.21 Also in the 1960s, "org-in every aspect of American society, all have
anization development" began its rapid rise as a conspired to make public administration an elusive
specialty of administrative science. Because of its entity in terms of determining its proper paradigm.

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PARADIGMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 383

This dilemma is not yet fully resolved, andThe Emerging Paradigm 5: Public Administration
confusion about the public variety of the field of As Public Administration, 1970-?
administration seems at least understandable; one
scholar, in fact, has argued that we should beginDespite continuing intellectual turmoil, Simon's
talking about "public administration," since1947
all proposal for a duality of scholarship in
kinds of managerial organizations increasingly find
public administration has been gaining a renewed
themselves relating to public, governmental, andvalidity. There is not yet a focus for the field in
political concerns due to the growing interre-
the form of a "pure science of administration,"
latedness of technological societies.23 but at least organization theory primarily has
The principal dilemma in defining the "public"
concerned itself in the last two and a half decades
in public administration appears to have been one
with how and why organizations work, how and
of dimension.24 Traditionally, the basis of defini-
why people in them behave, and how and why
tion for the term has been an institutional dimen-
decisions are made. Additionally, considerable
sion. For example, the Department of Defense progress
has has been made in refining the applied
been perceived by scholars as the legitimate locus
techniques of management science, as well as
of study for public administration, while developing
the new techniques, that often reflect what
Lockheed Corporation was seen as beyond the
has been learned in the more theoretical realms of
field's proper locus of concern. These were institu-
organizational analysis.
tional distinctions. Recently, however, this institu-
There has been less progress in delineating a
tional dimension seems to be waning among locus for the field, or what public affairs and
scholars as a definitional base, while a growing
"prescribing for public policy" should encompass
philosophic and ethical dimension appears toinbeterms relevant to public administrationists.
waxing. Hence, we are witnessing the rise of such
Nevertheless, the field does appear to be zeroing in
concerns for the field as "the public interest" on
andcertain fundamental social factors unique to
"public affairs." As concepts, these terms tend fully developed countries as its proper locus. The
implicitly to ignore institutional arrangements and
choice of these phenomena may be somewhat
concentrate instead on highly normative issuesarbitrary
as on the part of public administrationists,
they relate to the polity. Thus, rather than but they do share commonalities in that they have
analyzing the Department of Defense as its legiti-
engendered cross-disciplinary interest in univer-
mate locus of study, public administration finds sities, require synthesizing intellectual capacities,
and lean toward themes that reflect urban life,
itself scrutinizing the Department's relationships
with Lockheed and other private contractors as
administrative relations among organizations, and
these relationships affect the interests and affairs
the interface between technology and human
of the public. The normative dimension supplants
values-in short, public affairs. The traditional and
the institutional dimension as a defining base for
rigid distinction of the field between the "public
the locus of public administration. sphere" and the "private sphere" appears to be
As a paradigm, administrative science cannot waning as public administration's new and flexibly
comprehend the supravalue of the public interest.
defined locus waxes. Furthermore, public admin-
Without a sense of the public interest, administra-
istrationists have been increasingly concerned with
tive science can be used for any purpose, no
the inextricably related areas of policy science,
matter how antithetical to democratic values that
political economy, the public policy-making pro-
purpose may be. The concept of determining andcess and its analysis, and the measurement of
implementing the public interest constitutes a outputs. These latter aspects can be viewed,
policy
defining pillar of public administration and a locus
in some ways, as a linkage between public adminis-
of the field that receives little if any attention
tration's evolving focus and locus.
within the context of administrative science, just
as the focus of organization theory/management Institutionalizing Paradigm 5: Toward
science garners scant support in political science. It Curricular Autonomy
would seem, therefore, that public administration
should, and perhaps must, find a new paradigm With a paradigmatic focus of organization
that encourages both a focus and a locus for the
theory and management science, and a para-
field.
digmatic locus of the public interest as it relates to

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
384 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

public affairs, public administration at branch


last isof political science to radically depart in its central
intellectually prepared for the building assumptions
of an from those comprising the body of its host
discipline.27
institutionally autonomous educational curriculum
that can develop the epistemological uniqueness of
Similarly, those public administration programs
the field. What that curriculum will be is open to a part of business schools-the administra-
that are
speculation, but some trends seem to be emerging.
tive science approach-are limited in their poten-
One is that the field is burgeoning. Between 1970for development. Administrative science is
tiality
and 1971 alone, undergraduate enrollments in of the earlier paradigm of public admin-
reflective
public administration increased 36 per cent,istration
and which was founded upon the notion of
between 1971 and 1972 graduate enrollments
certain immutable administrative principles, in
went up 50 per cent.2 that both paradigms represent essentially technical
A second trend is institutional. Public adminis-
definitions of the field. Politics, values, normative
tration programs normally still are lodged in theory, and the role of the public interest are not
political science departments, although this ar- salient concerns in the administrative science
rangement clearly is declining. In a period of one paradigm, yet it is precisely these concerns that
academic year (1971-72 to 1972-73), graduate must be critical in any intelligent definition of
public administration programs that were a part of public administration.
political science departments sank precipitously Hence, public administration must borrow and
from 48 to 36 per cent, and those programs redefine in its own terms the concept of the public
connected with business schools (only 13 per cent interest from political science, and synthesize this
in 1971) appeared to be declining as well. On the concept with the methodologies and bureaucratic
clear upswing were those programs that functioned focus extant in administrative science. For all
as autonomous units within the university. During practical purposes, this unique, synthesizing com-
the same period, the percentage of separate bination can be accomplished only in institutional-
schools of public administration or public affairs ly autonomous academic units, free of the intel-
more than doubled, from 12 per cent in 1971 to lectual baggage that burdens the field in political
25 per cent in 1972; separate departments of science departments and administrative science
public administration (as opposed to separate schools alike.
schools) accounted for 23 per cent of the 101 Fortunately, the institutional trend in public
graduate programs surveyed in 1972-73.2 6 administration appears to be heading in the direc-
How public administration is situated in univer- tion of establishing separate schools of public
sities determines to a significant extent what affairs and separate departments of public adminis-
public administration is. With a plurality of public tration. The MPA and DPA degrees are gaining in
administration programs still being conducted in student popularity, and those academic journals
political science departments, we can infer that concerned with public policy, public affairs, and
political science currently dominates the field the public bureaucracy are flourishing and pro-
intellectually as well as institutionally; in brief, the liferating. A major sign of public administration's
arrangement represents the fulfillment of Gaus' growing independence is the dramatic growth of
statement on a theory of public administration institutes of government, public administration,
being simply a theory of politics. Unfortunately,
and urban affairs, and various kinds of public
locating public administration programs in politi-
policy centers in universities. In an 18-month
cal science departments has its costs. As Eugene P.
period between 1970 and 1972, the number of
Dvorin and Robert H. Simmons observe, "any such units more than doubled to approximately
desire for extensive experimentation" by public 300.28
administrationists "may depend upon the assent of It is time for public administration to come
departmental colleagues" in political science into its own. Substantial progress has been in this
who are unreceptive and insensitive to the administrative direction intellectually. For perhaps the first time
phenomenon in the emerging bureaucratic order. Under in public administration's 80 years in a quandary,
such conditions their power of decision making exceeds a tentative paradigm has been formulated for the
their responsibility for the program.... Under such field that defines the discipline's "specialized
conditions, the problems of public administration are what" and its "institutional where." This intellec-
compounded by the traditional disposition of political
science to itself assume an orthodox stance of value-free tual ripening must not be allowed to wither in
scholarship. It would be difficult, therefore, to expect one institutional settings that are unsympathetic-

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PARADIGMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 385

perhaps antithetical-to public administration's


7. Dwight Waldo, "Public Administration," Political
new and vital paradigm. The use of the field toScience: Advance of the Discipline, Marian D. Irish
society seems obvious, and, in an age in which(ed.) (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968),
pp. 153-189.
higher education generally is suffering from declin-
8. The high status of public administration relative to
ing enrollments, public administration programsother kinds of studies in the administrative sciences
are turning away highly qualified applicants. In
during this period is reflected in Robert Aaron
Gordon and James E. Howell, Higher Education for
short, the social, economic, intellectual, and politi-
cal reasons for public administration to assert itsBusiness (New York: Columbia University Press,
1959), notably pp. 379-393.
identity and autonomy are there. It remains to be
9. Lyndall Urwick, "Organization as a Technical Prob-
done.
lem," Papers on the Science of Administration,
Luther Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.) (New York:
Institute of Public Administration, 1937), p. 49.
Notes
10. John Merriman Gaus, "Trends in the Theory of
Public Administration," Public Administration Re-
view, Vol. 10 (Summer 1950), p. 168.
1. There are a number of recent writings addressing the 11. For example: Robert A. Dahl, "The Science of
old question of "What is public administration?" Public Administration: Three Problems," PublicAd-
from a new perspective. Representative published ministration Review, Vol. 7 (Winter 1947), pp. 1-11;
works of quality include: James C. Charlesworth Herbert A. Simon, "The Proverbs of Administra-
(ed.), Theory and Practice of Public Administration: tion," Public Administration Review, Vol. 6 (Winter
Scope, Objectives, and Methods (Philadelphia: Amer- 1946), pp. 53-67, and Administrative Behavior (New
ican Academy of Political and Social Science, York: Free Press, 1947); and Dwight Waldo, The
October 1968); Frank Marini (ed.), Toward a New Administrative State (New York: Ronald, 1948).
Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspec- 12. Herbert A. Simon, "A Comment on 'The Science of
tive (Scranton: Chandler, 1971); Richard J. Stillman, Public Administration,' " Public Administration Re-
II, "Woodrow Wilson and the Study of Administra- view, Vol. 7 (Summer 1947), p. 202.
tion: A New Look at an Old Essay," American 13. Lynton K. Caldwell, "Public Administration and the
Political Science Review, Vol. 67 (June 1973), pp. Universities: A Half-Century of Development," Pub-
582-588; Vincent Ostrom, The Intellectual Crisis in lic Administration Review, Vol. 25 (March 1965), p.
American Public Administration (University, Ala.: 57.
University of Alabama Press, 1973); Dwight Waldo, 14. Roscoe Martin, "Political Science and Public Admin-
"Developments in Public Administration," in The istration-A Note on the State of the Union,"
Annals of the American Academy of Political and American Political Science Review, Vol. 46 (Septem-
Social Science, Vol. 404 (November 1972), pp. ber 1952), p. 665.
217-245; and Howard E. McCurdy, "The Develop- 15. David Easton, The Political System (New York:
ment of Public Administration: A Map," Public Knopf, 1953). Easton pulled no punches in his
Administration: A Bibliography, Howard E. appraisal of the status of political science. As he
McCurdy (ed.) (Washington, D.C.: College of Public noted (pp. 38-40), "with the exception of public
Affairs, American University, 1972), pp. 9-28. I administration, formal education in political science
should state here that I am not considering the has not achieved the recognition in government
sub-field of comparative public administration in this
circles accorded, say, economics or psychology." Or,
article on the grounds that it has developed "However much students of political life may seek
somewhat independently of its parent field.
to escape the taint, if they were to eavesdrop on the
2. And I likely am using it inappropriately in this whisperings of their fellow social scientists, they
article. Nevertheless, "paradigm" conveys to most
would find that they are almost generally stigma-
people what I want it to convey; to wit: How tized as the least advanced."
mainstream public administrationists have perceived 16. Glendon A. Schubert, Jr., "'The Public Interest' in
their enterprise during the last 80 or so years. Administrative Decision-Making," American Political
3. National Association of Schools of Public Affairs
Science Review, Vol. 51 (June 1957), pp. 346-368.
and Administration (NASPAA), Public Affairs and 17. Martin Landau reviews this aspect of the field's
Administration Programs: 1971-72 Survey Report development cogently in his "The Concept of
(Washington, D.C.: NASPAA, 1972), p. 1. Decision-Making in the 'Field' of Public Administra-
4. Robert T. Golembiewski, "Public Administration As tion," Concepts and Issues in Administrative Be-
A Field: Four Developmental Phases," Georgia havior, Sidney Mailick and Edward H. Van Ness
Political Science Association Journal, Vol. 2 (Spring (eds.) (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962),
1974), pp. 24-25. pp. 1-29. Landau writes (p. 9), "public administra-
5. Frank Goodnow, Politics and Administration (New tion is neither a subfield of political science, nor
York: Macmillan, 1900), pp. 10-11. does it comprehend it; it simply becomes a syno-
6. "Report of the Committee on Instruction in Govern- nym."
ment," Proceedings of the American Political Sci- 18. Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus, American
ence Association, 1913-14 (Washington, D.C.: Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline (New
APSA, 1914), p. 264. York: Atherton, 1964), especially pp. 49-62 and

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
386 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

86-98. A. Nigro and Lloyd G. Nigro's Modern Public


19. Dwight Waldo, "Scope of the Theory of Public Administration (New York: Harper and Row, 3rd
Administration," in Charlesworth, op. cit., p. 8. edition, 1973). The authors define "public" in terms
20. Contrast this figure with the percentage of articles in of their "goldfish bowl" thesis. As they state (p. 15):
other categories published during the 1960-1970 "... no public organization can ever be exactly the
period: "political parties," 13 per cent; "public same as a private one.... As has often been said, the
opinion," 12 per cent; "legislatures," 12 per cent; public official operates in a goldfish bowl. ... Al-
and "elections/voting," 11 per cent. Even those though the officials of a private company also have
categories dealing peripherally with "bureaucratic important public contacts, they are not operating in
politics" and public administration evidently re- a goldfish bowl." John M. Pfiffner and Robert
ceived short shrift among the editors of the major Presthus, in their Public Administration (New York:
political science journals. "Region/federal govern- Ronald, 5th edition, 1960), also rely on institu-
ment" received four per cent, "chief executives" tionally based thinking when they distinguish "pub-
won three per cent, and "urban/metropolitan gov- lic" from "private" administration on the grounds
ernment" comprised two per cent. As the author of that public administration "is mainly concerned with
the study notes, "The conclusion is inescapable that the means for implementing political values" its
political scientists in recent years have not paid unique "highly legal framework," its "susceptibility
much attention to the vast new public bureaucracies to public criticism," and its inability to "evaluate its
emerging at all levels of the American and other activities in terms of profits." Both texts are
Western political systems ... in practice, if not in operating on variants of Paradigm 1 in that there is a
theory, our discipline still seems to operate as if the clear locus (or "public") for the field which is
bureaucracies ... were someone else's business." The perceived in institutional terms. By contrast, John
quotations and percentages are in Jack L. Walker, Rehfuss's Public Administration as Political Process
"Brother, Can You Paradigm?" PS, Vol. 5 (Fall (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973); James
1972), pp. 419422. The journals surveyed were W. Davis, Jr.'s, An Introduction to Public Adminis-
American Political Science Review, Journal of Poli- tration: Politics, Policy, and Bureaucracy (New
tics, Western Political Quarterly, Midwest Political York: Free Press, 1974); and Ira Sharkansky's Public
Science Journal, and Polity. Administration: Policy-Making in Government Agen-
21. Keith M. Henderson, Emerging Synthesis in Ameri- cies (Chicago: Markham, 2nd edition, 1972) all
can Public Administration (New York: Asia Publish- reflect a Paradigm 3 perception in that public
ing House, 1966). administration is seen as political science. Hence,
22. The growing impact of organization development "public" in contrast to "private" is either ignored as
(and the entire administrative science paradigm) on a distinction or its legitimacy as a distinction is
public administration is aptly indicated by the recent denied. Davis at least confronts this stance directly
symposium on the topic conducted by the Public (p. 4) by stating that, while the field is broadly
Administration Review. Of the six contributors to interdisciplinary, it nonetheless is "patent that this
the symposium, only two were associated with book represents only the political-science part of
political science departments, and only one with a public administration, not the part that would be
public administration unit. The remaining contribu- written by the economist or someone from a
tors were in administrative science, education, and business school." Similarly, Sharkansky observes (p.
psychology. See: Larry Kirkhart and Neely Gardner 3) that his book "concentrates on those components
(co-eds.), "Symposium on Organization Develop- that appear to be the most relevant to the political
ment," Public Administration Review, Vol. 34 process and that have received the most attention
(March/April 1974), pp. 97-140. from political scientists." Rehfuss tends to toss in
23. Lynton K. Caldwell, "Methodology in the Theory of the towel by noting (pp. 220-221) that, "Until the
Public Administration," in Charlesworth, op. cit., relationship between public and private administra-
pp. 211-212. tion is clarified (if, indeed, it ever can be), there is
24. Public administrationists, in an effort to distinguish unlikely to be agreement on the type of graduate
their field from "private administration," have taken training."
a number of differing directions. Marshall Edward 25. As calculated from figures in NASPAA, op. cit.
Dimmock and Gladys Ogden Dimmock's Public (1971-72), pp. 1-2, and NASPAA, Graduate School
Administration (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Programs in Public Affairs and Public Administra-
Winston, 4th edition, 1969) perhaps come closest to tion, 1974 (Washington, D.C.: NASPAA 1974), p.
a philosophic dimension in defining the "public" in 2.

public administration by their discussion of an 26. NASPAA, op. cit. (1971-72), Table 1, p. 105, and
"appreciation of the public" and the concept of "the NASPAA, op. cit. (1974), p. 2.
common man" (pp. 585-591). Most textbooks in the 27. Eugene P. Dvorin and Robert H. Simmons, From
field, however, either rely on an institutionally Amoral to Humane Bureaucracy (San Francisco:
formulated distinction between "public" and "pri- Canfield, 1972), pp. 52-53.
vate," or avoid the issue by relating public adminis- 28. Grace M. Taher (ed.), University Urban Research
tration to political science and the public policy- Centers, 1971-1972 (Washington, D.C.: The Urban
making process. An example of the former is Felix Institute, 2nd edition, 1971), p. i.

JULY/AUGUST 1975

This content downloaded from


189.125.96.10 on Fri, 07 May 2021 15:39:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy