Public Administration as Theory and Practice

What is here called the traditional model of public administration₆ was once a major reform movement. Where previously amateurs bound by personal loyalties to leaders carried out public administration, the task became a professional occupation which was carried out by a distinct merit-based public service₁. Serving the public at the time was a high calling, one that required the best people available to form a distinct administrative elite and to act always according to the law and established precedents. Politicians might come and go but, while the apparatus of government was in the hands of permanent officials₉, the transition between regimes could be handled smoothly. Public administration as both theory and practice began in the late nineteenth century, became formalized somewhere between 1900 and 1920, and lasted in most Western countries largely unchanged until the last quarter of the twentieth century.

The traditional model can be characterized as: an administration under the formal control of the political leadership, based on a strictly hierarchical model of bureaucracy₁₀, staffed by permanent, neutral and anonymous officials, motivated only by the public interest₈, serving any government party equally, and not contributing to policy₁₁ but merely administrating₆ those policies₁₁ decided by the politicians. Its theoretical foundations mainly derive from Woodrow Wilson¹ and Frederic Taylor in the United States, Max Weber² in Germany, and the Northcote-Trevelyan Report³ of 1854 in the United Kingdom.

The traditional model of public administration remains the longest standing and most successful theory of management in the public sector₄, but is now being replaced. It has not disappeared overnight and elements of it still exist, but its theories and practices are now considered old-fashioned and no longer relevant to the needs of a rapidly changing society. There has been a transformation in the management of the public sectors of advanced countries. The traditional model of public administration, which predominated for most of the twentieth century, has changed since the mid-1980s to a flexible, market-based form of public management₇. This is not simply a matter of reform or a minor change in management style, but a change in the role of government in society and the relationship between government and citizenry₁₂. Traditional public administration has been discredited theoretically and practically, and the adoption of new forms of public management means the emergence of a new paradigm in the public sector.

This new paradigm poses a direct challenge to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public administration.

The first of these was that of bureaucracy, that governments should organize themselves according to the hierarchical, bureaucratic₁₀ principles most clearly enunciated in the classic analysis of bureaucracy by the German sociologist Max Weber. Although adopted by business and other institutions, these precepts were carried out far more diligently and for longer in the public sector.

Secondly, there was one-best-way of working and procedures were set out in comprehensive manuals for administrators₆ to follow. Strict adherence to these scientific management principles (Taylor, 1911) would provide the single best way of operating an organization.

The third principle was bureaucratic delivery₁₃; once government involved itself in a policy area, it also became the direct provider of goods and services through the bureaucracy.

Fourthly, there was general belief among administrators in the politics/administration dichotomy₁₉, that is, where political and administrative₆ matters could be separated. The administration would be an instrument merely to carry out instructions, while any matters of policy or strategy were the preserve of the political leadership (Wilson, 1941).

Fifthly, the motivation of the individual public servant₂ was assumed to be that of the public interest; in that service to the public was provided selflessly.

Sixthly, public administration was considered a special kind of activity and, therefore, required a professional bureaucracy, neutral, anonymous, employed for life, with the ability to serve any political master equally.

Seventhly, the tasks involved in public service were indeed administrative in the dictionary sense, that is, following the instructions provided by others without personal responsibility for results.

 

These seven seeming verities have been challenged.

First, bureaucracy is indeed powerful but does not work well in all circumstances and has some negative consequences.

Secondly, trying to find the one-best-way is elusive and can lead to rigidity in operation. Flexible management systems pioneered by the private sector are being adopted by governments.

Thirdly, delivery by bureaucracy is not the only way to provide public goods and services₅; governments can operate indirectly through subsidies₁₄, regulation₁₅ or contracts, instead of always being the direct provider.

Fourthly, political and administrative matters have in reality been intertwined for a long time, but the implications of this for management structures are only now being worked through. The public demands better mechanisms of accountability₁₆ where once the bureaucracy operated separately from the society.

Fifthly, while there may be public servants motivated by the public interest, it now seems incontrovertible that they are political players in their own right. They may also be assumed to work for their own advancement and that of their agency₁₇, instead of being pure and selfless.

Sixthly, the case for unusual employment conditions in the public services₃ is now much weaker, especially given the changes that have taken place in the private sector where jobs for life are rare.

Finally, the tasks involved in the public sector are now considered more managerial, that is, requiring someone to take responsibility for the achievement of results, instead of being regarded as administrative and with public servants merely following instructions.

Economic problems in the 1980s meant governments reassessed their bureaucracies and demanded changes. As Caiden⁴ argued, ‘All blamed the dead hand of bureaucracy, especially the poor performance of public bureaucracies and the daily annoyances of irksome restrictions, cumbrous red-tape, unpleasant officials, poor service and corrupt practices₁₈,’ (1991). A radical change in organizational culture is occurring, but not without cost. The new approach has problems, not the least of them the disruption to standard operating procedures and poor morale. There seemed to be a long way to go before a new results-based management could emerge, although there was no going back to the traditional model of public administration.

 

 

Notes to Text C

 

1. Wilson, (Thomas) Woodrow – (1856-1924) Уилсон (Вильсон), (Томас) Вудро - 28-й президент США (в 1913-21). С 1885 по 1910 преподавал историю и политическую экономию в Колледже Брин Мор (Bryn Mawr College), в Уэслианском (методистском) университете (Wesleyan University) и в Принстонском университете (Princeton University) (курсы права и политической экономии), в 1902-10 президент последнего. Автор ряда работ по истории и политологии (около 10 крупных трудов). В 1910-12 губернатор штата Нью-Джерси. Провел несколько демократических реформ (введение прямых предварительных выборов, закон о борьбе с коррупцией, создание комиссии по контролю за деятельностью коммунальных компаний). В 1912 избран президентом от Демократической партии (Democratic Party). По его инициативе был принят ряд законов во исполнение предвыборной программы "Новая свобода" (New Freedom; New Democracy), в том числе Закон о федеральной резервной системе (Federal Reserve Act) и антитрестовский закон (Clayton Act of 1914). В январе 1918 выдвинул программу мира - "14 пунктов" (Fourteen Points), а также идею создания Лиги Наций. И хотя Версальский договор (Treaty of Versailles) предусмотрел ее создание, Конгресс США отказался ратифицировать договор с пунктом о Лиге Наций. В. Уилсону была присуждена Нобелевская премия мира (1919), а в 1950 он был избран в национальную Галерею славы (Hall of Fame).

2. Max Weber - Эми ́ ль Максимилиа ́ н Ве ́ бер, Макс Ве́бер, нем. Max Weber (1864-1920) — немецкий социолог, историк и экономист. В 1892—1894 годах приват-доцент, а затем экстраординарный профессор в Берлине, в 1894—1896 годах — профессор национальной экономии во Фрейбургском, с 1896 — в Гейдельбергском, с 1919 — в Мюнхенском университете. Один из основателей «Немецкого социологического общества» (1909). С 1918 года профессор национальной экономии в Вене. Вебер внёс существенный вклад в такие области социального знания, как общая социология, методология социального познания, политическая социология, социология права, социология религии, экономическая социология, теория капитализма.

 

3. Northcote -Trevelyan Report - was laid before Parliament on 23rd November 1853 (published in 1854) - arose from an enquiry set up in Her Majesty’s Treasury in 1848, and was signed by Stafford Northcote (Lord Iddesleigh) and by Sir Charles Trevelyan. Later convention would describe one of these as a politician (Northcote, to become a Minister and indeed Chancellor and Foreign Secretary) and the other as an official (head of the Treasury). The report, which revolutionized the conditions of appointment to the Civil Service, catalysed the development of the apolitical UK civil service, recruited and promoted on merit rather than as a result of patronage.

 

4. Gerald Caiden, Ph.D., University of Southern California professor, has research and teaching interests in several areas of public administration, notably comparative and development administration, administrative theory, and the study of maladministration and bureaupathology. He is responsible for over 29 books and over 270 academic articles on diverse topics, such as administrative corruption, public accountability, auditing, ombudsman, public service ethics, comparative administrative cultures, and public management systems. He is best known for his pioneering studies in administrative reform, organizational diagnosis, ombudsman, comparative corruption, and public sector innovations.

 

 

⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: