Henry 1975
Henry 1975
Henry 1975
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
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
JULY/AUGUST 1975
JULY/AUGUST 1975
JULY/AUGUST 1975
JULY/AUGUST 1975
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
JULY/AUGUST 1975
JULY/AUGUST 1975
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
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: