Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

Management has gradually become a profession. Its task has increased in difficulty, responsibility, and complexity, until today it touches all the sciences, from chemistry and mechanics to psychology and medicine. It calls to its service, therefore, men and women with tact and ideals, with the highest scientific qualifications and with a strong capacity for organization and leadership. It is employing lawyers and doctors, accountants and artists, and by directing their profession of its own, with all the implications consequent upon such a line of progress of standards, qualifications, apprenticeship, and technique. Oliver
Sheldon

Introduction The study of administration and management is an old thing. Just like communication, administration is also an important thing for man to nourish and flourish as scientific and artistic intellectuals living in a world intertwined by numerous cultures that sprang up to innumerable beliefs, principles, values orientation, thoughts and feelings. Yet, this world is contrived by what we call administrators and politicians. What the world will be and how it will be lies in the hands of these weavers of administration. Synthesis This paper aims to discuss two things: the paradigm shift of public administration and management and the myth of dichotomy as pointed out by Svara (2001). Public administration started as an independent science and profession as advocated by the progenitors of the discipline like Woodrow Wilson (1887) and Frank J. Goodnow (1900). These scholars promoted the autonomy of the field as a unique area of science. According to Wilson, the object of administrative study is to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy. He even mentioned that:
The idea of the state is the conscience of administration. This is why there should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify it organization, and to crown its dutifulness. This is one reason why there is such a science.

From the standpoint of White (1926) public administration is the management of men and materials in the accomplishment of the purposes of the state. The objective of
Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860 CED 227 (Administrative Theory) 2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis

Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

public administration is the most efficient utilization of the resources at the disposal of officials and employees. Public administration is, then, the execution of the public business; the goal of administrative activity the most expeditious, economical, and complete achievement of public programs. Just like White who equated public administration with efficiency, Simon (1946) believed that the theory of administration is concerned with how an organization should be constructed and operated in order to accomplish its work efficiently. In addition, Herring (1936) stated that the purpose of the democratic state is the free reconciliation of the group interests and that the attainment of this end necessitates the development of a great administrative machine. He continued that if the government is to become responsible for the economic security of various classes, the administrative machinery must be made adequate to the burden imposed- recognizing those that exist. Therefore, the public interest is the standard that guides the administrator in executing the law. From these classical viewpoints, public administration was variously termed as old, bureaucratic paradigm, old orthodoxy, old-time religion or simply traditional public administration. However, by moving away from the path of the traditionalists, the field of public administration became dislocated from its place in the governance process (G.S. Marshall, quotes in Wamsley and Wolf, 1996). After almost 50 years, there was a riveting story: the transformation of the fields orientation from an old paradigm to a new paradigm (special sort of change in habits of mind (Margolis, 1993) called New Public Management (NPM). Garson and Overman (1983) defined it as an interdisciplinary study of the generic aspects of administration a blend of the planning, organizing, and controlling functions of management with the management of human, financial, physical, information and political resources. Pollitt (2000) as cited by Lynn, 2001) characterized NPM by reducing and deregulating bureaucracy, using market mechanisms and simulated markets to conduct government action, devolving responsibility downward and outward in organizations, increasing productivity, energizing agencies, and empowering employees to pursue results, improve quality, and satisfy customers. But Lynn (1996) enumerated six differences between PA and PM that make the former a new field of study such as: 1) inclusion of general management functions (planning, organizing, control, and evaluation in lieu of discussion of social values; 2) an instrumental orientation favoring criteria of economy and efficiency in lieu of equity, responsiveness, or political salience; 3) a pragmatic focus on mid-level managers in lieu of the perspective of political or policy elites; 4) a
Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860 CED 227 (Administrative Theory) 2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis

Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

tendency to consider management as generic in lieu of accentuating them; 5) a singular focus on the organization in lieu of a focus on laws, institutions, and political bureaucratic processes; and 6) a strong philosophical link with the scientific management tradition in lieu of close ties to political science or sociology. But the distinction between old and new administration was as early as Wilson saying that: once simple which is not now complex; government once had but few masters; it now has scores of masters; majorities formerly only underwent government; they now conduct government; where government once might follow the whims of a court, it must now follow the views of a nation. Still, Vigoda (2003) enumerated differences of modern public administration from public services in the past: 1) It is larger and it still expanding; 2) it is more complex, and becoming increasingly complicated; 3) it has many more responsibilities to citizens, and it still to cope with increasing demands of the people; 4) It is acquiring more eligibilities; 5) Modern PA is considered a social science; 6) It is also a profession and occupation to which they dedicate their lives and careers; 7) PA is one of the highly powerful institutions in modern democracies. Frederickson (1971) explained that NPA adds social equity in the classic PA. Simply put, NPA seeks to change those policies and structures that systematically inhibit social equity. In NPA, administrators are not neutral that they should be committed to both good management and social equity as values, things to be achieved, or rationales. Aside from the revolution of public administration, another important thing to discuss is the myth of dichotomy or the complementarity of politics and administration. Svara (2001) emphasis is on the core relationship between politicians and administrators but argued that in the past and even in the present as well, there was a simultaneous emphasis on separation and insulation of administrators from political interference, on one hand, and interaction and incorporation of administrative contributions in the design and implementation of public policy, on the other hand, which is also favored by Wilson & Goodnow, and White. In fact, Goodnow and Wilson perceived PA as a separate and unique discipline that should consist of independent theory, practical skills, and methods (Vigoda, 2003). However, Frederickson (1971) argued that the policy-administration dichotomy lacks an empirical warrant, for it is abundantly clear that administrators both execute and make policy. Reasons why dichotomy has persisted: a) It is easier to explain a model based on sharing roles, particularly since the separation model does not limit the actual policy contributions of administrators in practice. b) It shields administrators from scrutiny and
Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860 CED 227 (Administrative Theory) 2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis

Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

serves the interest of elected officials who can pass responsibility for unpopular decisions to administrators (Peters, 1995 as cited by Svara, 2001). c) It is useful myth as it obscures the influence of administrators to constrain efforts by politicians in power to slant the implementation of policies and channel benefits toward themselves (Miller, 2000 as cited by Svara, 2001). Rosenbloom (1983) reflected on the opposing approaches (managerial, political and legal) to public administration as largely true that each is associated with the values embodied in a different branch of government, that is, managerial approach is most closely associated with the executive which has a constitutional power to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed; political approach closely related to legislative concerns that views public administrators as supplementary law makers and policy makers in general; and the legal approach closely linked to judiciary in its concern with individual rights, adversary procedure and equity. That is why, Lindblom (1959) emphasized that theory is sometimes of extremely limited helpfulness in policy-making for at least two rather different reasons: It is greedy for facts; it can be constructed only through a great collection of observations; and it is typically insufficiently precise for application to a policy that moves through small changes. Reaction It is worth remembering the classical brains of early or old public administration for they are the foundation of the administration and management we have and experiencing right now. They are the landmark of every government. But it is worth mentioning also that life after 50 years had changed so with the values, principles, ideology, beliefs, and thinking of man. With this change, conflicts and crises sprouted like mushroom after thunder. Local and international conflicts are everywhere that the classic administration can no longer hold true to the reality of man, to the present condition of man. This need prompted the birth of a New Public Administration and Management. As Waldo (1984) pointed out that the apparent likelihood of a disintegration of the old outlook and the synthesis of a new must be recognized. In any event, if abandonment of the politics-administration formula is taken seriously, if the demands of present world civilization upon public administration are met, administrative thought must establish a working relationship with every major province in the realm of human learning. On the other hand, politics and administration as two independent entities is a product of the classics known as dichotomy, which I also believe as mythic in the sense
Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860 CED 227 (Administrative Theory) 2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis

Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

that separating the two is like removing the gasoline from a gasoline engine. For me, they are two entities that complement each other. As Svara (2001) well explained that te complementarity of politics and administration holds that elected officials and administrators- both in regular communication with citizens need and help each other in a partnership for governance. Dividing the partners or skewing the relationship in one direction or the other means that an important contribution is missing. If we continue to accept the simple notion that public administration began as a separate instrumental entity confined to a narrow sphere of activity, we do a disservice to the past, and we run the risk of legitimizing a true dichotomy of policy formulation and contracted service delivery. It is important to appreciate the role of public administration in the old governance as a basis for understanding the relationship between public administrators and a wider array of actors in the new governance. However, there are classics that never fades like what Wilson (1887) stated: that civil service reform is a moral preparation for what is to follow. It is clearing the moral atmosphere of official life by establishing the sanctity of public office as a public trust, and by making the service unpartisan, it is opening the way for making it businesslike. If and only if this premise is faithfully observed in this world wide web of interrelated functionings of government and administration, then, this world is truly a beautiful place to live in. Another premise Wilson (1887) pointed out is that trust is strength in all relations of life; and, it is the office of the constitutional reformer to create conditions of trustfulness, so it is the office of the administrative organizer to fit administration with conditions of clear-cut responsibility which shall insure trustworthiness. If and only if all public officials are trustworthy, this country which had been developing for half a century should have been a developed one. Wilson claimed also that there is no danger in power, if only it be not irresponsible. As clearly enunciated by Peter Parkers uncle- with great power comes great responsibility. So, if and only if, all government officials are responsible with the power mandated to them through their office, this Philippines should have been a powerful nation. Another important thing worth pondering is the statement of Appleby (1945) that: Men with excellent records in private business will not necessarily make competent government officials because there are successful business executives who could not do well in government, so it is true that some governmental executives who are able to administer public affairs with distinction would probably fail if transferred to private enterprise. Thus, any man of political inclinations who has had organizational and executive experience would be superior prospect for success as a public official for the

Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860

CED 227 (Administrative Theory)

2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis

Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

reason that he would, almost inevitably, have developed breadth of view and a public interest attitude. Conclusion Preserving balance between the capacity to effect the public interest and democratic accountability of governance was, and arguably still is, the task of our democracy (Lynn, 2001). Whether traditional or new paradigm, independent and separated or complementarity, government and their administrators should characteristically focus on immediate situations and pressing problems as what reiterated by Caldwell (2002). Vigoda (2003) pointed out very clearly what the public really needs at present is a better bureaucracy which is more flexible, working efficiently and effectively, moving quickly toward objectives, and at the same time responding to the needs of the people without delays and with maximum social sensitivity, responsibility, and morality. So the public expects good and skillful administrators, versed in the mysteries of quality services and effective management. Only they can produce better public goods and deliver them to all sectors of society in minimum time and at minimum cost. This is the ideal type of public administration system which is very applicable to modern times. One thing for sure, as Appleby (1945) stipulated government is different because it must take account of all the desires, needs, actions, thoughts, and sentiments of million people. Government is different because government is politics. References: Allison, Graham T. Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in all Unimportant Respects? Chap. 38, pp. 383-400. Appleby, Paul. (1945). Government is Different. Chap.15, pp122-126 Caldwell, L.K. (2002) Public Adminisyttration the New Generation: Management in High-Information-Level Society. In E.Vigoda (Ed)., Public Adminisytration: An Interdisciplinary Critical Analysis, pp. 151-176. New York: Marcel Drekker. Frederickson, H. George. (1971). Toward a New Public Administration. The Minnowbrook Perspective by Frank E. Marini. Chandler Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Garson, G.D., and Overmannn, E.S. (1983). Public Management and Research in the United States. New York: Praeger.
Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860 CED 227 (Administrative Theory) 2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis

Reaction Paper 2

Administration/Management Theory

Herring, E. Pendleton. (1936). Public Administration and the Public Interest Chap. 8, pp.76-80. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through Public Administration Review. American Society for Public Administration. Reprinted by Classics of Public Administration. Lynn, Laurence, Jr. 1996. Public Management as Art, Science and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Lynn, Laurence, Jr. 2001. The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For. Public Administration Review. Vol. 61. No. 2 Margolis, Howard. (1993). Paradigms and Barriers: How Habits of Mind Govern Scientific Beliefs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenbloom, David H. (1983). Public Administrative Theory an dthe Separation of Powers. Public Administration Review. American Society for Public Administration. Reprinted by Classics of Public Administration. Simon, Herbert A. 1946. The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review. American Society for Public Administration. Reprinted by Classics of Public Administration. Svara, James H. 2001. The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future Public Administration. Public Administration Review. Vol. 61, No. 2. Vigoda, Eran. 2003. Rethinking the Identity of Public Administration: Interdisciplinary Reflections and Thoughts on Managerial Reconstruction. Public Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal. Vol.8, No.1, pp 1-22. Waldo, Dwight. 1984. The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration.(2nd Ed.) pp. 199-204. New York: Holmes and Meier. Wilson, Woodrow. (1887). The Study of Administration Chap 1, pp.14-36. White, Leonard D. (1926). Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. Chap. 6, pp.44-52

Juvy G. Mojares 2003-96860

CED 227 (Administrative Theory)

2nd Semester 2011-2012 Dr. Rowena DT. Baconguis