THE FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC

P.M.B 55, BIDA NIGER STATE

ASSIGNMENT

ON
ELEMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
(PAD 111)

QUESTION:
TRACE THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION

BY
UDOSEN MIRACLE IDONGESIT
MAT. NO: 2020/141523BP

SUBMITTED TO
MRS. FATIMA YABAGI
THE FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC,
P.M.B 55, BIDA,
NIGER STATE

JANUARY, 2021

1
INTRODUCTION

History of public administration, or administrative history, is the study of the origin and

evolution of administrative institutions, structures, praxises and ideas. Scholars of the history of

public administration usually, but not always, base their research on written texts such as archive

material and various printed sources. By studying the history of modern public administration,

we are able to look beyond contemporary administrative behaviour and systems and investigate

the roots and branches of modern government. The room to manoeuvre in present day public

administration is determined by its spatial and temporal limits; we need to explore and describe

these boundaries in historical time in order to grasp the complexity of history of public

administration as academic field.

Some scholars argue that history of public administration should primarily be considered an

applied science allowing the researcher to apply lessons from the past to contemporary

challenges. Others regard history of public administration as first and foremost an academic

discipline in itself with no explicit intention of reaching prescriptive conclusions. Generally,

however, while vast swathes of research has addressed and analysed contemporary policy

outcomes and administrative praxises, little consideration has been given to the ways in

which support systems were administered in the past or their institutional and historical

development.

The evolution of the study of Public Administration is studied by the scholars of Public

Administration under five periods. They are:

I. Period between 1887 and 1926

II. Period between 1927 and 1937

III. Period between 1938 and 1947

IV. Period between 1948 and 1970

V. Period 1971 onwards.

2
In this lesson an attempt has been made to study the evolution of the study of Public

Administration in the different periods.

The Evolution of the Public Administration during I period between 1887 and 1926

The first period is said to be the era of Politics Administration dichotomy. Public Administration

as a discipline is said to be originated in America. It enriches the discipline even today. In the

year 1887, Woodrow Wilson, a Professor of Political Science who later became the President of

America wrote an essay titled, “The Study of Administration”. Wilson's article examines the

history and subject matter of the study of public administration and argues for a particular

understanding of administrative government and particular methods for implementing it. This

article paved the way for the development of the discipline called Public Administration.

Therefore, Woodrow Wilson is called the father of Public Administration. In this essay, he has

pointed out that Politics is concerned with making of policies and Administration is concerned

with implementation of polices. Politics is the special province of statement and Public

Administration is the special province of Government officials. Therefore, Woodrow Wilson

said that Public Administration should be studied as an independent discipline. Wilson stated

four reasons why there should be a science of administration:

(1) Straighten the paths of government;

(2) Make its business businesslike;

(3) Strengthen its organization; and

(4) Crown its dutifulness.

Wilson knew that it is not possible to achieve absolute separation of politics and administration

as what he really wants was to keep public administration out of the ills of politics and

institutionalize the practice of effective administration. Thus Woodrow Wilson was responsible

for the development of the discipline called Public Administration. But he did not elaborate the

areas which should form the study of Public Administration, This gap was filled up by

Goodnow. He wrote a book titled “Politics and Administration”, he is stated that while politics

3
has something to do with policies or expressions of the State’s will, administration has to do

with the execution of such policies. Wilson and Goodnow made clear that politics is limited to

crafting of policies and lawmaking, a function generally vested upon a State’s legislative body;

and administration is focused on the implementation of laws, a function normally held by the

State’s executive branch.

Although these definitions are valid, it would be somewhat problematic if we were to use this in

our present (or any future) analysis. To illustrate, the legislative veto and oversight function of

the Philippine Congress can be viewed as a manifestation of how it can act like and share the

authority of administration with the executive branch. Also, the exclusive power of the President

of the Philippines to introduce the budget proposal to the Congress shows how the President can

play a preeminent role in policy agenda. Other than the overlapping (if not harmony) of

functions of politics and administration, the problem which now remains is the obsolescence of

this longstanding differentiation of these fields.

If we were to view politics as a field which concerns the allocation of public resources, a cursory

definition which I believe is being employed by the scholars of our time, it would be resonant of

what public administration essentially means.

If truth be told, the difference between politics and administration is really hard to tell as the

former heavily influences the latter, or vice versa. Nevertheless the discussion has gone a long

way. While some scholars posit that Wilson called for a complete separation of politics and

administration, Wilson himself admitted that the dichotomy of the two is fictional. So if it is

implausible in the first place, why call for dichotomy? This is now the part where we shall

answer our first question we asked in introduction. He has explained in his book the areas which

form the study of Public Administration.

In 1926 L.D. White wrote a textbook on Public Administration. The title of the book was

“Introduction to the study of Public Administration”. L.D. White is one of the major theorists

and practitioners in public administration and is generally ignored. White taught, researched,

4
studied and discovered theoretical concepts and practical methods that are still useful today.

Examines the major themes found in White’s writings by chronologically progressing through

his works and the major activities of his life. Brings to the forefront a portion of public

administrations’ neglected intellectual heritage and makes it useful for the present. Thus even

today this book is considered as a classic in Public Administration. The main theme for the three

works in the first period was Politics Administration dichotomy.

The Evolution of the Public Administration during II Period between 1927 and 1937

The second period in the evolution of the study of Public Administration is said to be the golden

period in the development of the study of Public Administration. A large number of books on

Public Administration were written during this period by a number of scholars of Public

Administration. “Principles of Organization” by Mooney and Reiley, “The Theory of

Management” by Mary Parker Follet, Henry Fayol’s, “Papers on the Science of Administration”

by Gullick and Urwick are some the important works appeared during this period.

James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, in their pioneering work, “The principles of

organization,” 1939, illustrated the close relationship between management and bureaucracy by

noting that organization ion the formal sense means order, the organized and orderly procedures.

Both approaches emphasize objectivity rationality, certainty, hierarchy and professionalism. The

administrative theory also shares the same weaknesses of the theory of bureaucracy as regards

rigidity, impersonality, displacement of objectives limitation of departmental categorization,

self-perpetuation and empire building the cost of controls and anxiety. Unlike the theory of

bureaucracy, which was developed by sociologist, who studied government institutions the

administrative theory, was developed by practising managers. Their objective was to develop a

theory incorporating principles and other concepts for achieving formal organization. It is

sometimes said that the bureaucratic theorists suggested what a formal organization should be

and the administrative theorists suggested the means of achieving it. While the bureaucrats

5
emphasize the organization structure the administrative theorists emphasize management, which

is a component of organization.

Mary Parker Follett, Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol in their work titled “The Theory of

Management”, have pointed out that management is a skill where tasks are accomplished

through a process in order to achieve certain goals of the organisation. There are many

definitions of management explained by different people and numerous philosophers. The

evolution -the change of management study consists a period in the 20th century where

scientific approach, classical/administrative approach and human relations of management were

the major changes and had huge impact on the management environment. In the evolution of

management there are appearance of many names but this paper only focuses on three

philosophers named Mary Parker Follett, Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol. It looks at their work

and contributions in management and what is their best approaches. These three individuals

introduced many great different ideas and techniques to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness

and to change the concept of working in the workplace. This paper examines the work,

statement of Follett regarding the hierarchy of position in contrast to authority and it leads on to

compare it with Taylor and Fayols viewpoints.

Thus, these scholars are of the opinion that certain principles of Public Administration can be

developed and by applying these principles in the Governmental organizations, more efficiency

and productivity can be achieved. During this period, the discipline of Public Administration

commanded a high degree of respectability.

The Evolution of the Public Administration during III period between 1938 and 1947

This period is said to e the crises of identify for the discipline of Public Administration. In the

first period, the base for the development of the study of Public Administration was Politics

Administration dichotomy. This dichotomy was challenged by Paul H. Appleby. He said that

Politics and Administration couldn’t be separated because though policies authorities make

policies, they can not make the policies without the help of administrate authorities. Therefore,

6
administrative authorities that are in evolved in the implementation of policies also involve in

making of policies. Thus Politics can not be separated from Administration.

The second base for the development of the discipline called Public Administration is that,

certain principles of Public Administration can be evolved, and by careful application of these

principles in Governmental originations, more efficiency and productively could be brought

about.

In the second period a number of scholars of Public Administration who are called classical

thinkers developed a number of principles of Public Administration. Herbert. A. Simon

challenged the validity of the principles developed by the classical thinkers. He said that the

Principles developed by the classical thinkers are just proverbs. These principles are not based

on empirical test. Therefore by applying these principles, Simon said more efficiency and

productively can not be brought about in the Governmental Organization. Elton Mayo, through

the various experiments he conducted, in the Hawthorne Western Electric Company proved that

efficiency and productivity in an organization depended in not applying the principles of Public

Administration but by developing better human relations between the individuals working in the

organization. Thus, the two bases on which Public Administration grew as a discipline in the

two periods, were challenged in the third period and there by there was a crisis of identify for the

discipline Public Administration.

Herbert A. Simon

Herbert A.Simon’s principal publications are Administrative Behaviour (1947); Fundamental

Research in Administration (1953); Organization (1958); The New Science of Management

Decision (1960); Shape of Automation (1960); Science of the Artificial (1969) and Human

Problem Solving (1972). In recognition of his outstanding contribution in analyzing the decision

– making process, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978. He was a visiting Professor in

several universities. He is one of the outstanding pioneers in psychological research.

7
Simon attacked the principles of administration developed by classical theorists on the ground

that there was a wide gap between these prescribed principles and their effective practice. He

rejected them as mere proverbs. According to the classical theorists, efficiency is supposed to

increase with an increase in specialization. But Simon pointed out that specialization is not a

condition of efficient administration. Specialization means different people doing different

things. The real problem of administration is not specialization, but specializing in a particular

manner and direction that may lead to administrative efficiency. Simon is of the view that

administrative efficiency can only be increased by a specialization of the task among the group

in the direction that will lead to greater efficiency.

The second principle attacked by Simon is the principle of unity of command. According to

him, the main limitation of this principle is that it is against the principle of specialization.

Under the principle of specialization subordinates have to accept orders not only from their

superiors but also from all kinds of specialists. In such a situation unity of command does not

exist.

The third principle attacked by Simon is the principle of span of control. His observation is that

limiting the number of subordinates reporting directly to one superior can in a large

organization, cause excessive red tape.

The bases of organization, namely, purpose, process, place and people were also not acceptable

to Simon. He observed that it is not consistent with the principle of specialization. Further, the

difference between one basis and another is negligible or the terms are confusing with each

other. A purpose is achieved through a process. If it is so, there cannot be much difference

between the two terms. His observation is that one cannot be scarified for the other.

Simon observes that decision - making is the core of administration as it is made at all levels of

the organization. The task of decision – making pervades the entire administrative organization.

Rational decision – making process is the ideal one. But many non – rational factors are found

in the organization. Therefore, all efforts are to be directed towards maximizing rationality in

8
decision - making. Decision – making involves the execution of decisions in which even a

person working at the lowest levels of hierarchy has an essential role to play in the

accomplishment of the organization’s objectives.

Any rational decision is a conclusion reached from certain premises. These premises are values

and facts. If these values and facts are specified, the behaviour of the persons who take decision

on the basis of these value and facts can be controlled. If the value premises and facts premises

are clearly specified the control that is exercised over the decision – maker will be complete. If

the premises are left to the discretion of the decision – maker without clear specifications then,

the control exercised over him will be only partial.

Simon makes a difference between permitting a discretion based on value premises and a

discretion based on factual premises. The discretion permitted on factual premises can be

evaluated as correct or incorrect. But the discretion permitted on the basis of value premises

cannot be evaluated as correct or incorrect in empirical sense. It is mainly because there is no

universally accepted criterion to judge the discretion on the value premises as correct or

incorrect.

Since factual and value considerations are present in decision – making, it is not possible to

evaluate the decision of an administrator scientifically. The process of decision – making can be

sub divided into two phases. They are developing a system of values and appraising their

relative merits and demerits; and making a comparison of the possible lines of actions in terms

of the values system.

The first phase involves both ethical and factual considerations but the second phase involves

only factual considerations. The distinction between value premises and factual premises has a

bearing on the distinction between policy and administration. Simon is for separating the former

from the latter observes that a science of administration can only be based on facts.

Simon is interested in analyzing how decisions are made more effective. He identifies three

stages in the scientific process of decision – making. These three stages are the intelligence

9
activity, the design activity and the choice activity. The intelligence activity refers to identifying

occasions calling for a decision. For identifying the occasions that require decisions one will

have to survey the economic, social, political and technical environment. Adequate data will be

required for this purpose. The design activity refers to selecting a particular course of action

from among the several available courses of action and the choice activity refers to selecting a

particular course of action from among the several available courses of action.

Elton Mayo

In 1924, Mayo along with a few other professors of Harvard Business School, U.S.A. conducted

a series of experiments at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company, Chicago which

was engaged in producing bells and other electrical equipments for the telephone industry. The

experiments conducted by them are classified into three parts. They are illumination

Experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932; Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments

conducted between 1927 and 1932; and Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiments

conducted between 1931 and 1932.

The illumination experiments begin in November 1924, to study the relationship between

quality and quantity of illumination and efficiency in industry. This experiment was started on

the original hypothesis of scientific management that there was a correlation between the

intensity of illumination and workers’ output. But the findings were surprisingly unexpected.

For the purpose of the experiments workers were divided into an experimental room with varied

illumination, and a control room with constant conditions. The production decreased only after

the light became so dim that workers could not see properly.

The Evolution of the Public Administration during IV Period between 1948 and 1970

This period is said to be the period of reconstruction and development to the discipline Public

Administration. During this period, young scholars of Public Administration of America went to

the different countries of the world and studied about their administrative systems. They found

10
that the administrative systems evolved in the developing countries were inadequate to

implement the policies. Therefore, they said that policy making which was considered to be the

study of Political Science should be made an integral part of the study of Public Administration.

Policy Science or Policy Analysis was part of the study of Political Science. It was mainly

concerned with making of policies, which was the concern of the study of Political Science. If

policies have to be properly implemented which is the concern of the study of Public

Administration, the policies themselves should be properly made. Therefore, policy making

which was concern of the study of political Science has become an important area of the study

of Public Administration.

The scholars of Public administration also found that the administrative systems were

inadequate to implement the developmental programes, and therefore, the concern of

development of a country, which is part of study of Economics, should be made an important

part of the study of Public Administration in the title ‘Development Administration’. Almost all

the countries in the world have become welfare States. They are implementing lot of

developmental programmers for the welfare of the people. The administrative machinery

evolved to implement the police functions is not suited to implement the development

programmers. Therefore, Development Administration, which is concerned with evolving a

suitable machinery to implement the development programmers, has been added as an important

area of the study of Public Administration.

The Evolution of the Public Administration during V Period 1971 onwards

In this period the discipline Public Administration with incorporation of new areas has been

introduced as an important academic discipline in the colleges and universities of the different

countries of the world.

New Public Administration

11
Since 1968, Contemporary Public Administration has been enriched with the emergence of the

concept New Public Administration. The following are considered as the landmarks in the

growth and emergence of Contemporary Public Administration.

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

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

3. The Minnow brook Conference, 1968

The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service (1967)

In identified four problems confronting it and suggested immediate action on them:

1. Insufficient resources at disposal of the discipline.

2. Intellectual argument over the status of the discipline: is it Discipline, a Science, or

Profession?

3. Institutional weakness.

4. Gap between scholars of Public Administration and practicing administrators.

The Honey Report made the following eleven recommendations:

1. The establishment of a National Commission for Public Service Education to exert broad

leadership in meeting the needs of Governments for educated manpower.

2. A substantial fellowship programme for postgraduate students, who are preparing for

public service at the master’s and doctoral levels and also including preparation for

professional degrees.

3. Internship programmes to operate at federal, state, and local levels for post graduate

students and advanced under graduates preparing for public service careers.

4. A special fellowship programmer for those planning to be come teachers in schools and

programs of Public Administration and Public Affairs.

5. A Programem to provide opportunities for practical Governmental experience to

university faculty engaged in Public Affairs teaching and research.

12
 6. A Programme of assistance to universities for Public Affairs, curricular experimentation

and development.

7. Support for university personnel engaged in research on Governmental and Public

Affairs issues.

8. Support from Federal, State and Local Governments, as well as from private industry, for

the provision of facilities. To schools and programems of Public Administration and

Public Affairs.

9. The establishment of an advisory service for new Public Affairs programmes and the

development of personnel rosters to provide current information on experienced

graduates of schools of Public Administration and Public Affairs.

10. It recommended that study of the universities and education for public service be

undertaken, the purposes to show how various types of institutions now approach their

public service educational and other tasks and to identify simulative and innovative

development as well as deficiencies and problems.

11. The second major and closely associated research proposal was for a study of the

professions, professional education and the public service.

Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration (1967)

The American Academy of Political and Social Sciences organized a conference in Philadelphia

in December 1967. James. C. Charles Worth was the Chairman of the conference.

Public Administration was viewed as an academic discipline, as a field exercise, and as a

profession. Some define Public Administration as Administration in the ‘Public interest’ while

others made it coterminous with ‘Governmental Administration’. There was thus no agreed

definition of Public Administration but there emerged a broad consensus on the following

points:

1. It is just as difficult to delineate the scope of Public Administration, as it is to define it.

2. Policy Administration dichotomy is erroneous.

13
 3. American Public Administration in as a discipline should deal restrictively with Public

Administration in America.

4. Bureaucracy should be studied functionally as well as structurally.

5. Public Administration and Business Administration training should not be combined since

they are similar only in unimportant aspects.

6. Public Administration as a profession should remain separate from the profession and

discipline of Political Science.

7. Normative administrative theory as well as descriptive analytic theory in Public

Administration is in a state of disarray.

8. A hierarchical pyramidal view of organizational authority is no longer appropriate.

Administrators must view workers as “coordinates” rather than “subordinates”. The

Executive is not so much on top as he is in the center, being affected by “subordinates”

who surround him.

9. Policy and political considerations are replacing management ability as the major focus of

concern in Public Administration. Computerized information is not good simply because it

is computerized. Nor does Planning Programming Budgeting System (PPBS) provide

reliable political answers. Quantification and cost analysis cover only a small part of the

total factors in a decision.

10. Administrative of the future should be trained in professional schools; Public

Administration curricula should emphasize not only administrative organization and

procedures but also the “psychological, financial sociological, and anthropological

development of the subject”.

11. Public Administrative on has not been able to deal with societal problems. Public

Administration theory “has not caught up with emerging problems, like the huge military

industrial complex, riots, labor unions and strikes, public school conflicts, slums, the

impingement of science, and developing countries”.

14
12. Public Administration is a discipline but is cannot employ all the methodologies of the

contemporary social science. While parts of Public Administration are capable of using

scientific methods, others, which are the most important parts of the discipline, are not

amendable to scientific treatments. In the words of Charles Worth: “We can be scientific,

if we severally limit the scope of our discipline, but if we did, would we not excise its

most valuable parts? And we are scientific in some corners, our subject is heavy with

values and prescriptions, we can never be scientific”.

The Minnow brook Conference (1968)

This conference was the youth conference on Public Administration. It gave rise to the concept

New Public Administration. It was this conference, which expressed, very loudly, and clearly

the dissatisfaction with the state of the discipline.

It was the first one, which sought to give a new image to Public Administration, a subject

actively concerned with the problems of the society and full of reformist intentions.

The outcome of the Minnowbrrok conference was the publication of two books. They are:

1. “Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnow brook Perspective”, edited by Frank

Marini, 1971

2. “Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence” edited by Dwight Waldo, 1971.

There has been so serious publication on New Public Administration since 1971. Surely, articles

have been appearing, but they fall into two broad categories. Some of these articles support the

movement while others criticize even denounce it.

The classical values of Public Administration have been efficiency, economy, productivity, and

centralization. New Public Administration fosters a new set of values. It advocates humanism,

decentralization, delegation, pluralism, personal growth, individual dignity etc. it rejects the

view that Administration is value neutral. It advocates citizen participation and neighborhood

control over street level bureaucracies. It supports bureaucratic responsiveness.

15
Conclusion

Though Public Administration as a discipline is about century old, through various phases in the

evolution of the study of Public Administration, it has grown into a very important discipline

called New Public Administration. The academicians and parishioners of the discipline should

make sincere efforts in the right direction to enable the discipline regains a status and a place of

respectability like other discipline of social sciences.

16
 REFERENCES

Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G. (2009), Definitions and typologies in public administration
research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of Public
Administration, 32(8): 704–727.

Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim, & Nor Fadzlina Nawi. (2007). Principles of Public
Administration: An Introduction. Kuala Lumpur: Karisma Publications. ISBN
978-983-195-253-5

Smith, Kevin B. and Licari, Michael J. Public Administration - Power and Politics in the
Fourth Branch of Government, ISBN 1-933220-04-X

White, Jay D. and Guy B. Adams. Research in public administration: reflections on

Donald Menzel and Harvey White (eds) 2011. The State of Public Administration:
Issues, Challenges and Opportunity. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

17