"Public Administration: an Identity crisis"

Abstract

Public administration is in a state of identity distress.

Whereas for many years the questions of politics and
policy were those which unconditionally ruled the
discipline, at present public administration as a
science, art, and profession is undergoing far-reaching
transformations. Two major forces of rectification have
increasingly augmented the conservative ones to create a
more interdisciplinary orientation of the field. These
are
cultural and social inputs and organizational,
managerial, and economical influences.

This merger began many years ago, but only recently has
it attained sufficient critical mass to direct the public
sector through various necessary changes. This paper
accordingly suggests a revision of the evolution of
public administration in the modern era, and argues that
interdisciplinary reflections may be beneficial for the
healthy development of the field in the years to come.
Based on relevant literature the paper explains how a
multi-level, multi-method, and multi-system approach may
revitalize our understanding of a scholarly domain that
is currently in a state of some perplexity and in search
of the way forward

Introduction
The world of government and public administration has
traveled far since the early days of its struggle for
disciplinary independence. Lately, there has been talk of
the advent
of a new spirit in the public sector, or at least
expectations of its coming. Some say that such a spirit
is already here. Others aver we are witnessing only the
tip of change.

The world wide globalization process supported by

stronger orientations towards open markets, open highways
of information, growing levels of organizational learning
and interdisciplinarity in the social sciences have also
made their impact on the study of our bureaucracies. Yet
by all definitions public administration in the beginning
of the 2000s still lacks the sense of identity that other
fields of the social sciences has long since obtained. In
other words, the field is looking back and down into its
individuality, searching for orientations and signs that
can direct it on its way forward. Today, public
administration is already very different from what it
used to be forty, thirty, and even twenty or ten years
ago. In the coming years it is going to be even more
different.

The dilemma of independence and interdisciplinarity in

pubKc
administration

For many years public administration has struggled for

its independent position in the social sciences. While in
its early years it was part of the more conservative
fields of
Law, Politics, and Economy, it has been developed today
to a unique field, independent in many ways but still
enjoying mutual contributions of other disciplines in the
social
sciences. Moreover, in the last century it has developed
a theoretical but also an impressive practical agenda
that created remarkable achievements in different ways.
The public sector, both as a science and as a profession
is responsible for much of these achievements.

At the dawn of the new millennium, however, various new

social problems still await the consideration and
attention of the state and its administrative system. The
question of independency of public administration as a
science seems today less important than in the past.
Instead, there are many calls to take advantage of multi
disciplinary orientations in the social sciences and to
find better ways to integrate them in the current ethos
of public administration. It is also suggested that such
interdisciplinary ideas, tools, and methods can help to
overcome social problems and create effective remedies
for the new type of state maladies. Interdisciplinarity
is also translated into is cooperation,
collaboration, and a share of information and knowledge.
The multi-level, multi-method, and multi-system analysis
with a look towards the future are the main frontiers of
modern public
administration.

The interdisciplinary view endeavors to provide an

insight into the complexity of the field by combining
different levels of analysis into an integral whole,
which better accords with reality. This knowledge may
well serve our understanding of how the state, and its
executive branches, is managed and of the obstacles to
better public performance. An important task is to
illuminate cross-disciplinary principles for greater
effectiveness and efficiency of public management in
future generations, when environmental pressures will
grow, together with an increase in citizens' demands and
needs. An interdisciplinary approach to public
administration may thus be of merit for a contentious
field in a state of rapid change. It may stimulate new
and viable thinking that can lead to additional positive
innovation in the old type of bureaucracies.

The central assumption of this essay is that slowly and

gradually, but constantly and extensively, a change is
being nurtured in public systems and in the attitudes of
public
managers, politicians, and citizens to the conservative
role of public institutions. These transformations carry
many challenges, as well as risks, that citizens,
governments, an
administrators of the future will have to confront and
address. They all represent new alternatives for the
evolution of public administration as an art, perhaps
also as a science
and as a profession (Lynn, 1996). Our task, as stemming
from such a perspective, is to understand better the
changes ahead, which have the potential of building
bridges into the
future of modern democracies. A core assumption, as will
be developed here, is that this goal can be achieved only
through cooperation among the public, private, and third
sector
organizations that collaborate through mutual efforts and
combined knowledge available in all the relevant social
sciences.

Public administration in transition

The evolutionary process

The foundations of modern public administration can be

discerned thousands of years ago, across cultures, and in
various nations around the globe. The Bible mentions a
variety of hierarchical and managerial structures that
served as prototypes for governance of growing
populations. Ancient methods of public labor distribution
were expanded by the
Greeks and the Romans to control vast conquered lands and
many peoples. The Persian and Ottoman empires in the
Middle East, like India and imperial China in the Far
East, and the
Mesoamerica cultures paved the way for public
administration in the modern age, wherein European
Christians, and later Christians of the New World, were
in the ascendant.

All these, as well as other cultures, used a remarkably

similar set of concepts, ideas, and methods for governing
and administrating public goods, resources, and
interests. They all employed professionals and experts
from a variety of social fields. They all used authority
and power as the cheapest control system for individuals,
governmental institutions, and processes. All of them
faced administrative problems close in type and in nature
to problems of our own times: how to achieve better
efficiency, effectiveness, and
economy in government, how to satisfy the needs of the
people, and how to sustain stable political hegemony
despite the divergent demands and needs of sectorial
groups. Not surprisingly, all the above cultures and
nations also used similar managerial tools and methods to
solve problems of this sort. They all used, fairly
effectively, division of work,
professionalism, centralization and decentralization
mechanisms, accumulation of knowledge, coordination of
jobs, complex staffing processes of employees, long-range
planning, controlling for performance, and so on.
Intuitively, one feels that nothing has really changed in
the managerial and administrative process of public
organizations for centuries, possibly millennia. But this
feeling is of course exaggerated.

Some major changes have taken place in recent centuries

to create a totally different environment and new rules,
to which rulers and citizens must adhere and by which
they must adjust their operation. In fact, a new kind of
governing game has taken shape, in which public
administration plays a central role.

Despite basic similarities, the public administration of

our times is entirely different from public services in
the past. These differences can be summarized in 7 key
points :

(1) It is larger than ever before, and it still

expanding;

(2) It is more complex than in the past, and becoming

increasingly so by the day;
(3) It has many more responsibilities to citizens, and it
still has to cope with
increasing demands of the people.

(4) It is acquiring more eligibilities, but must restrain

its operation and adhere to standards of equity, justice,
social fairness, transparency and accountability.

(5) Modern public administration is considered a social

science, a classification that carries high esteem but
also firm obligations and rigid constraints.

(6) For many individuals who decide to become public

servants it is also a profession and occupation to which
they dedicate their lives and careers.

(7) Public administration is one of the highly powerful

institutions in modern democracies.

Thus, it is evident that public administration of our

time wields considerable power
and influence in policy framing, policy making, and
policy implementation. Hence it is
subject to growing pressures of political players, social
actors, managerial professionals,
and the overall economic market.
An eclectic science

Public administration is an eclectic science. It was born

towards the end of the 19'
century when the business of the state started to attract
social-academic attention. The
revolution turning public administration into an
independent science and profession is
traditionally related to the influential work and vision
of Woodrow Wilson (1887) and Frank
J. Goodnow (1900). These scholars were among the first
who advocated the autonomy of
the field as a unique area of science that drew substance
from several sources. In the first
years, law, political theory of the state, and several
"hard sciences" such as engineering and
industrial relations were the most fundamental and
influential mother disciplines. Over time,
these fields strongly influenced the formation and
transition of public administration but the
extent and direction of the influence were not linear or
consistent.
Kettl and Milward (1996:7) argued that traditional public
administration, as
advocated by the progenitors of the discipline, consisted
in the power of law.
Representatives of the people make the law and delegate
responsibility to professional
bureaucrats to execute it properly. Highly qualified
bureaucrats, supported by the best tools
and resources, are then expected to discharge the law to
the highest professional standards,
which in return produces good and accountable managerial
results that best serve the
people. According to Rosenbloom (1998), the legal
approach views public administration
"as applying and enforcing the law in concrete
circumstances" and is "infused with legal
and adjudicatory concerns" (p. 33). This approach is
derived from three major interrelated
sources: (1) administrative law, which is the body of law
and regulations that control generic
administrative processes; (2) the judicialization of
public administration, which is the
tendency for administrative processes to resemble
courtroom procedures; and (3)
constitutional law, which redefines a variety of
citizens' rights and liberties. Several legal
definitions argue that public administration is law in
action and mainly a regulative system,
which is "government telling citizens and businesses what
they may and may not do"
(Shafritz & Russell, 1997:14). However, with the years it
has become obvious that law in
itself does not maintain satisfactory conditions for
quality public sector performances to
emerge. Constitutional systems furnish platforms for
healthy performance of public
administration, but do not account for its effectiveness
or efficiency. Put differently, good
laws are necessary but not sufficient conditions for
creating a well-performing public
service. They only highlight the significance of other
scholarly contributions.

One such important contribution came from the classic

"hard sciences" of
engineering and industrial relations. In its very early
stages public administration was
heavily influenced by dramatic social forces and long-
range developments in the western
world. The ongoing industrial revolution in the early
1900s, which was accompanied by
political reforms, higher democratization, and more
concern for the people's welfare, needed
highly qualified navigators. These were engineers,
industrial entrepreneurs, and technical
professionals who guided both markets and governments
along the elusive paths to
economic and social prosperity. Various fields of
engineering, the subsequent evoking area
of industrial studies, and other linked disciplines such
as statistical methods became
popular and crucial for the development of management
science in general, and were also
gradually found useful for public arenas. The link
between general management and public
administration has its roots in the understanding of
complex organizations and
bureaucracies, which have many shared features. Here,
much contribution was made in non-
American societies such Germany, France, and Britain. In
fact, early American public
administration was influenced by the works of various
European. Thus, the current state of
public administration can not be covered without adequate
understanding of the seminal
works by Max Weber (1947), Henry Fayol (1925), Lindel
Urwick (1928), and others. Their
ideas and theoretical development of the field are
considered today as core -stones for the
emergence of modern public administration and management.

With time, dramatic changes occurred in the nature and

orientation of general
organizational theory, and in its application to public
administration of modern societies. A
major transition resulted from the exploration by the
Hawthorn studies in the 1920s and
1930s, conducted by a well known industrial psychologist
from Chicago University, Alton
Mayo. A behavioral apparatus was used to drive a second
revolution, beyond the
revolution of its original emergence, which swept the
young science into its first stages of

maturity. Today, trends and developments in the public

sector cannot be fully understood
without adequate attention to behavioral, social, and
cultural issues. These aspects conjoin
with questions of policy making and policy evaluation, as
well as with managerial,
economic, and organizational contents, better to
illuminate public systems. The human and
social side of public organizations became central and
critical to all seekers of greater
knowledge and comprehension of the state's operation.
People and groups were placed at
the heart of the discussion on organizational development
and managerial methods. The
human side of organizations was made an organic part of
the art of administration. Still
today it is an indispensable facet of the craft of
bureaucracy. All who are interested in the
healthy future and sound progress of public organizations
and services both as a science
and as a profession have to incorporate humanistic views
well in their basic managerial
ideology.

However, major transitions still lay ahead. International

conflicts during the 1930s
and the 1940s wrought immense changes in national
ideology and democratic perspectives
in many western societies. Consequently, public
administration and public policy had to be
transformed as well. During the Second World War
theoretical ideas were massively
supported by advanced technology and higher standards of
industrialization. These were
pioneered by professional managers and accompanied by new
managerial theories.
Ironically, the two world wars served as facilitators of
managerial change as well as
accelerators and agents of future developments and
reforms in the public sector. The
political leaders and social movements of the victorious
democracies were convinced that
the time had come for extensive reforms in the management
of western states. The assumed
correlation of social and economic conditions with
political stability and order propelled
some of the more massive economic programs in which the
state took an active part. The
rehabilitation of war-ravaged Europe involved
governmental efforts and international aid,
most of it from the United States. Major attention was
dedicated to the creation of better
services for the people, long-range planning, and high-
performance public institutions
capable of delivering quality public goods to growing
numbers of citizens. To build better
societies was the goal. A larger and more productive
public sector was the tool.

In many respects the Utopian vision of a better society

generated by the post-war
politicians and administrators in the 1940s and 1950s
inexorably crumbled and fell during the
1960s and 1970s. A sizable number of governments in the
western world could not deliver to
the people many of the social promises they had made. The
challenge of creating a new
society, free of crime and poverty, highly educated and
morally superior, healthier and safer
than ever before, remained an unreachable goal. So during
the 1970s and 1980s, citizens'
trust and confidence in government, and in public
administration as a professional agent of
government, suffered a significant decline. The public no
longer believed that governments
and public services could bring relief to those who
needed help, and that no public planning
was good enough to compete with natural social and market
forces. The promises of modern
administration, running an effective public policy,
seemed like a broken dream. Political
changes took place in most western states, largely
stemming from deep frustration by the
public and disapproval of government policies. By the end
of the 20' century the crises in
public organizations and mistrust of administrators were
viewed both as a policy and
managerial failure (Rainey, 1990). In addition, this
practical uncertainty and disappointment
with governments and their public administration
authorities naturally diffused into the
academic community. Theoretical ideas for policy reforms
in various social fields that once
seemed the key to remedying illnesses in democracies have
proven unsuccessful. Within

the last decade the search for new ideas and solutions
for such problems has reached its
peak, as premises originally rooted in business
management have become increasingly
adjusted and applied to tie public sector. Among these
ventures are re-engineering
bureaucracies (Hammer and Champy, 1994), applying
benchmarking strategy to public
services (Camp, 1998), re-inventing government (Osborne
and Gaebler, 1992), and the most
influential movement of New Public Management (NPM: Lynn,
1998; Stewart and Ranson,
1994). These are receiving growing attention accompanied
by large measures of skepticism
and criticism.

Transformations in the academic realm

Throughout those years public administration as an

academic field was also in
transition. Today, many examples exist in universities of
independent public administration
units; some operate as schools and some as free-standing
faculties. But in at least an equal
number of universities, public administration programs on
all levels are only part of larger
units such as Political Science departments. Business and
Management schools, or even
Public Affairs schools. This disciplinary schizophrenia
certainly yields a science that is
more complex and heterogeneous, but also more challenging
and full of promise.

The scientific background and identity of public

administration in the late 1990s
and early 2000s is still not stable and has not overcome
its childhood ailments. On the
contrary. Identity conflicts have only intensified with
the years. Some 30 years ago, Waldo
(1968) noted that ongoing transformations in public
administration reflected an identity
crisis of a science in formation. During the last three
decades Waldo's diagnostics on public
administration as a science struggling with a pernicious
identity problem has not changed
much. The evolution of alternative sub-disciplines inside
and around the field (e.g., policy
studies, public personnel management, information
management, etc.) carried promises but
also risks for its position and role as a central field
of social study. As recently noted by
Peters (1996), modern public administration greatly
reflects lack of self-confidence both as a
science and as a profession. This lack is expressed in
many ways, the most significant being
incapacity to guide governments through a safe circuit of
public policy change. Much of
the accumulated wisdom in the science of public
administration has been obtained through
social experiments, the commission of policy errors, and
sometimes even learning from them
about better ways to serve the people. But mistakes cost
money, much money, money from
all of us, the taxpayers. Like good customers in a
neighborhood supermarket, citizens
should and have become aware of the services they
deserve, of the high prices they are
asked to pay, and of governmental actions that should be
taken to produce useful changes.
Demands for better operation are generally aimed at
governments, but they should be, and
are, also targeted at the science and at academia.
Science has the potential of exploring new
knowledge, generating better explanations for relevant
administrative problems, applying
sophisticated and useful professional methods, and most
importantly directing all available
resources to produce successful and practical
recommendations for professionals. Its prime
goal is to design a comprehensive theoretical view of
public systems that is clear, highly
efficient, effective, thrifty, and socially oriented at
the same time. This cannot be achieved
without extensive understanding of the diversity,
complexity, and interdisciplinarity of the
science of public administration.

The contribution of an interdisciphnar y view to public

administration identity

In many ways the persistent public mistrast of

governmental services and
institutions, together with the marked instability of
public administration as a science,
inspired us in the present venture. The fragile status of
the theory of public administration
is a port of departure for a different kind of
discussion, which is broader and multi-
perceptional. Our core argument is that one can find many
ways to depict the administrative
system, its functionality, and its relationship with the
public. But the identity crisis of public
administration cannot be solved until many approaches are
combined and coalesce to
explain the very basic constructs that modern societies
encounter at the start of the new
century. A foremost assumption of this paper is that only
mutual efforts and quality
combination of critical knowledge from a variety of
social disciplines and methods can yield
a real opportunity for overcoming public administration's
post-childhood problems. Such a
crisis of identity, which has existed for more than a
century now, carries risks, but also
promises, which must be well isolated, assessed,
analyzed, and only then fulfilled. The
translation of science into operative acts by government
must rely on such wisdom, which
can be sufficiently accumulated from various social
branches.

Interdisciplinary heredity

The desired comprehensive understanding of public

administration, as portrayed
earlier, should rely on the accumulated wisdom and
knowledge of its sister disciplines (and
not necessarily the conventional mother disciplines) in
the social sciences. Unfortunately,
so far most writing on public systems has adopted a uni-
dimensional viewpoint. Public
administration was frequently understood through the eyes
of policy analysts or political
scientists. Alternatively it was considered a specific
field of management science or as an
organizational studies domain. While the roots of the
administrative process are definitely,
and with much justification, identified with political
science, policy studies, and managerial
constructs of public institutions, it would be greatly in
error to point solely to these arenas
in portraying the domain and nature of public
administration. An integrative approach has
much merit and potential in this case, and it must be
well developed to conform to the
complex reality of serving the public.

More specifically I argue that the administrative science

is a discipline in transition
that involves politics, but not only politics. It deals
with policy, but reaches much farther
and deeper than policy questions. It incorporates
sociological and cultural aspects that
change rapidly in a mass communicative global world, but
it goes even beyond these
issues. It deals with people as workers, as citizens, as
clients, and as consumers, as leaders
and managers, as well as with a variety of other human
constructs that fuse into a unique
branch of knowledge. A multi-disciplinary approach is
evidently required to explain better
what every scholar already knows from his or her personal
perspective: that the truth about
public administration has many faces and no monopoly
exists any longer on the discipline's
status and orientations.

In light of the above I identify three main disciplines

that serve today as core
sources of knowledge in the study of public
administration.

(1) Policy analysis, Political science, and Political

Economy;

(2) Sociology, Cultural studies, and Community studies;

(3) Management and Organizational studies;

Policy, Politics, and Political Economy

The political approach to public administration was

depicted by Rosenbloom
(1998) as stressing the values of representativeness,
political responsiveness, and
accountability to the citizenry through elected
officials. These values are considered
necessary requirements of democracy, and they must be
incorporated into all aspects of
govemment and administration. Wallace (1978) argued that
ultimately public administration
is a problem in political theory. It deals with the
responsiveness of administrative agencies
and bureaucracies to the elected officials, and through
them, to the citizens themselves.
Shafritz and Russell (1997) provide several politics
-oriented definitions of public
administration: it is what government does (or does not
do), it is a phase in the
policymaking cycle, it is a prime tool for implementing
the public interest, and it does
collectively what cannot be done so well individually
(pp. 6-13). Hence it is impossible to
conduct a politics -free discussion of public
administration. This political debate in public
administration is also heavily influenced by the sub-
field of political economy. Questions of
budgeting and financing the public sector (Wildavsky,
1984) as well as bringing more
economical rationality to decision making processes
usually conflict with political
considerations (Jackson & Mcleod, 1982). However they
also put them under economical
restraints and enhance "checks and balances" to a system
mostly monitored and controlled
by politicians, political parties, and other federal or
national institutions, rather than
professionals and practitioners .

Yet, politics is definitely the heart of public

administration processes. Politics
focuses on citizens as members of groups or on highly
institutionalized organizations that
sound the public's voice before political officials and
civil servants. The politics approach
to public administration involves strategies of
negotiating and maneuvering among political
parties, public opinion, and bureaucracies. It involves
an incremental change in society,
which relies on open debate, a legitimate power struggle,
distribution and redistribution of
national resources and budgets, and a heavy body of
legislation and law to regulate these
processes. Perhaps the most obvious linkage between
politics and public administration
stems from policy making and policy implementation
processes. It is naive to distinguish
political systems from professional administration
systems in regard to public policy. As
Rosenbloom (1998:13) suggested, "public administrators'
involvement in the public policy
cycle makes politics far more salient in the public
sector than in private enterprise. Public
administrators are perforce required to build and
maintain political support for the policies
and programs they implement. They must try to convince
members of the legislature, chief
executives, political appointees, interest groups,
private individuals, and the public at large
that their activities and policies are desirable and
responsive".

The theoretical contribution of political science to the

study of public
administration is therefore multi-faceted. It invokes
better understanding of the power
relations and influence dynamics that take place inside
and among bureaucracies (Pfeffer,
1992) and determine their operative function as well as
outcomes. It also employs a rather
vast knowledge from economics and rational thinking.
Party politics acknowledges that the
investigation of pressure and interest groups, and the
better understanding of conflict
relationships among various players of the state, are
used to build models of decision
making and policy determination that are rational and
realistic. In addition, political

10

psychology is implemented more thoroughly to explore

personality traits of political leaders
as well as public servants. For the same reasons,
budgetary studies and policy analysis
methods are an integral facet of the political approach,
which assumes limited rationality as
well as high constraints of time and resources on the
administrative process.

From a somewhat different perspective, EUwood (1996: p.

51) argued that political
science has simultaneously everything and little to offer
public management scholars, hence
also public administration scholars. Everything, because
both fields deal with political
behavior, processes, and institutions. Little, because
political science deals only with the
constraints forced on the administrative process with no
practical contribution to the
managerial improvement of public systems. Ellwood further
concurs that both fields rely on
other academic disciplines, employing techniques of
anthropology, economics, game
theory, historiography, psychology, and social
psychology, as well as sociology. In line
with this it would be only natural to conclude that the
relationship between political science
and public administration is described as an on-again,
off-again romance. Kettl (1993, p. 409)
suggested that "the importance of administration lay at
the very core of the creation of the
American Political Science Association... when five of
the first eleven presidents of the
association came from public administration" and played a
major role in framing the
discipline. As Ellwood puts it, with the years, public
administration became public but also
administration. It shifted its focus to a more practical
and client-service orientation, which
necessarily incorporated knowledge from other social
disciplines like personnel
management, organizational behavior, accounting,
budgeting, and so forth. The
methodological contribution of a political approach to
public administration studies is also
meaningful. Here a macro analysis is necessary if one
seeks an understanding of the
operation of large bureaucracies and their coexistence
with political players. A political
approach delivers these goods by means of comparative
studies, policy evaluation
methods, rational choice ncdels, and simulations, as well
as content-analysis techniques
and other tools useful for observation of the political
sphere.

Sociology, Culture, and Community

Studying public administration is also a social issue.

Thus, another approach that
is highly relevant to the understanding of public
administration bodies and processes rests
on a sociological apparatus. It has a very close
relationship with the political approach, so it
is sometimes defined as a socio-political view of public
systems or as a study of political
culture (Shafritz & Russell, 1997:76). Yet its core
prospects are beyond the political context.
The voice of society has a special role in the study of
public administration arenas not only
for democratic and political reasons but also because of
its fundamental impact on informal
constructs of reality such as tradition, social norms and
values, ethics, life style, work
standards, and other human-cultural interactions that are
not necessarily political.

The theoretical contribution of a sociological and

cultural approach to public
administration consists of several elements. An essential
distinction must be drawn
between inside and outside cultural environments. An
outside cultural sphere incorporates
informal activities and behaviors of small groups as well
as of larger social units which
interact with the administrative system. Included in this
category are customers' groups,
private organizations, not-for-profit volunteering
organizations, and citizens at large.
Considerable attention has been turned to communities and
to the idea of communitarianism

11

(Etzioni 1994; 1995) as well as to the emergence of the

third sector as rapidly changing
conventional structures and beliefs in modern societies
(Gidron, Kramer, and Salamon,
1992). An inside cultural environment is related to
internal organizational dynamics and to
the behaviors of people as work groups. Thus, it is
sometimes termed organizational culture,
or organizational climate (Schein, 1985). Like the
outside organizational environment, it has
some observable constructs but it mostly expresses many
covert phases. In many ways,
"culture is to the organization what personality is to
the individual - a hidden, yet unifying
theme that provides meaning, direction and mobilization"
(Kilmann et al., 1985). It includes
basic assumptions as to what is right and what is wrong
for a certain organizational
community, norms and beliefs of employees, unseen social
rules and accepted codes of
behavior, as well as tradition, language, dress, and
ceremonies with common meaning to all
organizational members. All these distinguish "us" from
"them", promote group
cohesiveness, and improve common interests.

Several sociological sources can be effective in

analyzing public administration
dynamics. First is group theory, which is also closely
related to the study of leaders and
leadership. Second are ethnic studies, which concentrate
on minorities and race questions
such as equity, fair distribution of public goods, and
integration in productive public
activity. Third is communication and the technological
information revolution, which have
had a radical effect on society, public policy, and
public administration units and structure.
Information networks and communication have become an
immanent feature of the cultural
investigation of bureaucracies. For many years a
plausible approach in management science
and in the study of public administration called for the
formulation of a universal theory in
the field, one that is culture -free and applicable
across all nations. With the passage of time
and with giant technological developments this perception
became ever more anachronistic.

Today, the goal of a universal administrative paradigm is

hardly achievable. An
alternative viewpoint is more balanced and contingent. It
argues that basic similarities do
exist between public organizations and public
administration mechanisms, but at the same
time intra -organizational and extra -organizational
culture fulfills a major mediating role.
Culture in its broad context constantly affects the
operation of bureaucracies as well as
political systems that interact with them. Examples like
Theory Z of W. Ouchi (1981) and
lessons from a more recent Chinese and east European
experiences stimulated the scientific
community and initiated culture -oriented ventures in
general management inquiry
(Hofstede, 1980). They especially promoted the
investigation of work values and culture-
oriented management in private but also in public arenas.
Many scholars became convinced
of the necessity of incorporating social and cultural
variables as core elements in the
administrative analysis of public arenas. A sociological
and cultural approach to public
administration also made an important methodological
contribution. It initiated culture -
focused surveys of individuals and groups who work in the
public sector or of citizens who
receive services and goods. Culture-focused observations
and analyses possess the merit
of being sensitive to people's (as citizens or employees)
norms, values, traditions, and
dispositions, and sometimes they overlap other politics
and policy-oriented studies the
better to explore dynamics in public organizations.
Finally, several ethical considerations should be
included under any sociological
understanding of the public sector. Ethical dilemmas are
frequent in public administration

12

and relate to cultural aspects , to norms, and most

importantly to the individual behaviour of
public servants. For example, hand-in-hand with
governmental operation, questions of
ethical standards, integrity, fair and equal treatment to
clients, or appropriate criteria for
rewards to public servants become more relevant. Today,
public services in Europe are
wider than ever before (Gladstone, 1995; De-Leon, 1996).
As a result, public servants are
taking care of growing budgets. They control the
transference of more capital to and from
the state treasury. This exposes many of them to ethical
dilemmas as to how to properly
manage, distribute and redistribute economical wealth.
Other ethical difficulties arise as a
result of the instability between business and social
requirements in the public environment.
For example, when the cost of certain medicine is too
high for citizens to purchase, should
the state take responsibility and help them? When state
prisons are full of convicted
prisoners, should the state release some of them to
create more places for others?
Responding to such moral issues is difficult. However,
public policy which neglects
considerations of ethics, equal treatment of the public,
or basic justice and fairness among
its members is initiating a self -destructive process
which may damage its functioning in the
long run (Wilenski, 1980).

Management and Organization studies

The third core -stone of public administration is based

on knowledge from
management and organizational sciences. A managerial
definition of public administration
proclaims that it is the executive function in government
or a management specialty applied
in public systems (Shafritz and Russell, 1997:19-23).
Although public sector management is
distinguished from private sector management, in many
ways the two systems share a
surprisingly broad area of similarities (Rainey, 1990).
For many years, differences stemmed
from the nature of services each sector customarily
provided, from diverse structures and
functions, but mainly from discrepancies in the
environment. However, when the
environment started rapidly to change, organizations had
to change as well. Modern
societies have become more complex, flexible, and
dynamic. Cultural, industrial,
technological, economic, and political environments of
organizations have undergone rapid
transformations that are still in progress today. On the
one hand, public and private
organizations have to adjust and comply with similar
changes in the environment to
safeguard their interests and existence. But on the other
hand, the starting point of public
organizations is far inferior and urgently calls for
rethinking and reinventing (Osborne and
Gaebler, 1992).

Conventional wisdom accepted a classic assumption

regarding the relatively stable
and unshakable structure of public organizations. Drawing
on the Weberian approach,
hardly anyone disputed the need for large bureaucracies
in modern democracies. Moreover,
the advantages and disadvantages of large bureaucracies
were well known among
academics and practitioners. A weighty bureaucracy was
considered an axiom of public
administration. Only with the emergence of new management
trends in old bureaucracy were
these basic assumptions questioned. For example, Kettl
and Milward (1996) stated that
management in the public sector matters. It matters
because citizens' demands increase and
because the standards of performance expected from
governments are higher than ever
before. Performance is related in the minds of people and
in scientific studies to quality of
management, quality of managers, and the administrative
process between them.
Accordingly, it has much to do with the human aspects of
administration. Perhaps this

13

perception has led to some recent developments in public

administration, making it client-
oriented and more businesslike. Scholars frequently
define these shifts as the principal
change in public administration and its transition into a
revised field of study named public
management.

Current trends: A public managerial reform?

What is the future of modern public administration and

what new frontiers are
awaiting ahead? The wisdom of managing states and
communities in the 21^' century relies
on manifold disciplines and niiltiple sources of
knowledge. The information era and the
immense technological advancement with which our nations
struggle necessarily create
higher levels of accessibility, availability, and
transparency to the public . The emergence of
e-government is no more a fantastic dream but blatant
reality. Public administration in
America and in the world is moving through reforms and
changes that are aimed at
downsizing, privatization, de-bureaucratization, higher
professional managerialsim, and
above all strict dedication and aspirations to become a
better "science" by improving
measurement tools and adhering with positivism and
empiricism.

Since the early 1980s much work has been conducted in

public administration
theory and practice that claimed to go beyond the
conservative approach in the field. This
"liberalization" of public administration is recognized
today as the "New Public
Management" (NPM) trend. The self-identity problem of
public administration was greatly
aggravated by the launching of the idea of NPM. As noted
by Kettl and Milward (1996: vii),
"public management is neither traditional public
administration nor policy analysis since it
borrows heavily from a variety of disciplines and
methodological approaches". Mainly
drawing on the experience of the
business/industrial/private sector, scholars have
suggested taking a more demanding attitude to the
dynamics, activity, and productivity of
public organizations. However, "competing academic
disciplines dueled to establish
bridgeheads or, worse, virtually ignored each other as
they developed parallel tracks on
related problems" (p. 5). Consequently, a cross-
fertilization, which could have accelerated
learning and improved performance of public systems, was
delayed.

What are the roots of NPM, and in what way is it actually

a new arena in the study
of the public sector? Several theoretical foundations, as
well as practical factors, can answer
these questions. The first, and probably the deepest
source of NPM emerges from the
distinction between two proximate terms or fields of
research: administration and
management. As noted earlier, since the late 1880s the
monopoly on the term administration
has been held by political scientists. Scholars like
Goodnow and Wilson were those who
perceived public administration as a separate and unique
discipline that should consist of
independent theory, practical skills, and methods.
However, the term management referred
to a more general arena, used by all social scientists
and mainly by those who practice and
advance theory in organizational psychology and business
studies. Consequently,
conservative administration science tends to analyze the
operation of large bureaucratic
systems as well as other governmental processes aimed at
policy implementation.
Management, on the other hand, refers to the general
practice of empowering people and
groups in various social environments and in handling
multiple organizational resources to
maximize efficiency and effectiveness in the process of
producing goods or services.

14
NPM has indeed become extremely popular in the theory and
practice of
contemporary public administration. Still, it is not
clear if we can define it as a long-range
revolution in public administration theory . Some will
say that NPM has only revived an old
spirit of managerialism and applied it in the public
sector. Others will argue that this in itself
has been a momentous contribution to public
administration as a discipline in decline.
Relying on an extensive survey of public management
research in America, Garson and
Overman (1983:275) argued that this increasing popularity
was due to the more virile
connotation of the term management than administration.
Over the years, a growing number
of political scientists came to perceive public
administration as an old and declining
discipline. It was unable to provide the public with
adequate practical answers to its
demands, and moreover it left the theoreticians with
epidemic social dilemmas awaiting
exploration. Interesting evidence of this process could
be found in many schools of public
administration that during the 1980s and 1990s decided to
become schools of public
management. Looking for alternative ideas, management
theory was proposed as the source
for a new and refreshing perspective. It was suggested
that public management rather than
public administration could contribute to a new
understanding of how to run the
government more efficiently, hence to surmount some of
its pandemic ailments.

Thus, Perry and Kraemer (1983) stated that a greater

impact of new ideas and
methods from the field of public management on the
administrative science was essential
and natural. It reflected a special focus of modern
public administration that was not to be
ignored. Rainey (1990:157) claimed that this process was
a result of the growing
unpopularity of government during the 1960s and 1970s.
Ott, Hyde, and Shafritz (1991:1)
also stated that public management was a major segment of
the broader field of public
administration since it focused on the profession and on
the public manager as a
practitioner of that profession. Furthermore, it
emphasized well-accepted managerial tools,
techniques, knowledge, and skills that could be used to
turn ideas and policy into a
(successful) program of action.

During the last two decades many definitions have been

suggested for NPM. Yet
nothing seems wrong with the relatively old perception of
Garson and Overman (1983:278),
who defined it as "aw 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" . As
further discussed by other scholars (e.g., Lynn, 1996:38-
39), six differences exist between
public administration and public management that make the
former a new field of study and
practice. These are (1) the inclusion of general
management functions such as planning,
organizing, control, and evaluation in lieu of discussion
of social values and conflicts of
bureaucracy and democracy; (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 tendency to
consider management as generic, or at least to minimize
the differences between public and
private sectors in lieu of accentuating them; (5) a
singular focus on the organization, with
external relations treated in the same rational manner as
internal operations in lieu of a focus
on laws, institutions, and political bureaucratic
processes; (6) a strong philosophical link
with the scientific management tradition in lieu of close
ties to political science or sociology.

15

While the emergence of NPM b frequently related to the

increasing impact of
positivist behavioral science on the study of politics
and government (e.g., Lynn, 1996:5-6),
the practical aspect of this process should also be
considered. Practical public managers
(Golembiewski, 1995), s well as political scientists,
will refer to the difficulties in policy
making and policy implementation which faced many western
societies in Europe, America,
and elsewhere during the 1970s. These practical
difficulties are viewed today as an
important trigger for the evolution of NPM. Reviewing two
recent books on NPM (Aucoin,
1995; Boston, Martin, Pallot, and Walsh, 1996), Khademian
(1998:269) argues that American
and Westminster advocates of the field find common ground
in explaining why such
reforms are necessary. The problem of an inflexible
bureaucracy that often could not
respond efficiently and promptly to the public needs
conflicted with some basic democratic
principles and values in these countries. Peter Aucoin
elegantly summarizes a "trinity" of
broadly based challenges with which western democracies
have struggled, and will
probably continue to struggle in the future, partly
through management reform. These are
(1) growing demands for restraint in public sector
spending, (2) increasing cynicism
regarding government bureaucracies' responsiveness to
citizens' concerns and political
authority and dissatisfaction with program effectiveness,
and (3) an international,
market-driven economy that does not defer to domestic
policy efforts. These challenges
have apparently led many western governments, in America,
Britain, New Zealand, Canada,
and elsewhere, to the recognition that firm reforms and
changes in the public service should
be made.

There is no doubt that at least some of the accumulated

wisdom of the private
sector in many countries is transferable to the public
sector (PoUitt, 1988; Smith, 1993). In an
attempt to liberate the public sector from its old
conservative image and tedious practice
NPM was advanced as a relevant and promising alternative.
NPM literature has tried to
recognize and define new criteria that may help in
determining the extent to which public
agencies succeed in meeting the growing needs of the
public. NPM has continuously
advocated the implementation of specific Performance
Indicators (Pis) used in private
organizations to create a performance-based culture and
matching compensatory strategies
in these systems. It has recommended that these
indicators be applied in the public sector
(e.g.. Smith, 1993; Carter, 1989) since they can function
as milestones on the way to better
efficiency and effectiveness of public agencies.
Moreover, citizens' awareness of the
performance of public services was suggested as a core
element of NPM since it can
increase the political pressure placed on elected and
appointed public servants, thereby
enhancing both managerial and allocative efficiency in
the public sector. Scholars who
advocate NPM liken this process of public accountability
to stakeholders/citizens to the
role adopted by financial reporting in the
private/corporate sector (Smith, 1993). As in that
sector, increasing exterior-related outcomes can have a
profound impact on internal control
mechanisms, as managers and public servants become more
sensitive to their duties and
highly committed to serve their public customers.

Thus, Lynn (1998:231) suggested that the NPM of the late

1990s had three
constructive legacies for the field of public
administration and for democratic theory and
practice. These were (1) a stronger emphasis on
performance-motivated administration and
inclusion in the administrative canon of performance-
oriented institutional arrangements,
structural forms, and managerial doctrines fitted to
particular context, in other words,
advances in the state of the public management art; (2)
an international dialogue on and a

16

stronger comparative dimension to the study of state

design and administrative reform; and
(3) the integrated use of economic, sociological, social-
psychological, and other advanced
conceptual models and heuristics in the study of public
institutions and management, with
the potential to strengthen the field's scholarship and
the possibilities for theory -grounded
practice. While the first two "legacies" are widely
discussed in contemporary literature, the
third is much understudied and needs further theoretical
development, empirically guided
research, and practical implementation.

Moreover, Kettl and Milward (1996) argue that one of

NPM's most significant
contributions to public administration as a discipline in
transition is the focus on the
performance of governmental organizations. According to
their analysis, this scientific
orientation needs to draw on "a wide variety of academic
disciplines for the full and richly
textured picture required to improve the way government
works. Only through
interdisciplinary cross-fertilization will the picture be
rich enough to capture the enormous
variety and complexity of true public management (and
administration) puzzles" (p. 6).

The journey continues

This paper has relied on previous works to describe

public administration as a
discipline in transition. In many ways it has always been
in continuous movement, but not
always in the same direction. Contrary to the heavy,
formal, and inflexible image of
bureaucracies, public sector bodies in America, Europe,
and elsewhere have been in rapidly
intensifying transition since the early 1990s. During the
last century public administration
has undergone gone significant changes resulting from
crises, as well as breakthroughs in
an ultra-dynamic environment. Generally speaking, Waldo's
(1968) assertion that these
ongoing transformations reflected an identity crisis of a
science in formation is also relevant
today, albeit with some amendments. Whereas in the past
these crises signaled a struggle
for the recognition and legitimacy of public
administration as a scholarly academic field,
today the identity problem leads to other dilemmas, which
are beyond simple existence and
legitimacy.

In recent decades the struggle over the nature and

uniqueness of public
administration has continued, some say even intensified.
From the very early days of the
discipline to the present its boundaries have been in a
state of ongoing debate. To talk of
the "Public", of "Administration", and of the integration
of the two constructs into a useful
terrain for study holds out promise as well as involving
difficulties. But consensus does
exist on at least one issue: the public needs a better
bureaucracy, 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. The public also 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. These goals are undoubtedly ambitious but they have
the potential of safeguarding
the structure of democratic societies. This is a revised
version of the ideal type of public
administration systems applicable to modern times.

However, reality seems far more complex. There is growing

concern among

17

scholars today that these goals are way beyond reach.

Modern states across the world face
serious problems of adhering to the public's needs.
Achieving one target is usually
accompanied by painful compromises on others, and limited
resources are frequently cited
as the main reason for failure in the provision of
services. Moreover, fundamental changes
are taking place in people's lifestyles, as in their
beliefs and ideologies. They are multiplied
through high technology, communication systems, new
distribution of capital, and the rise
of new civic values that never existed before. All these
lead citizens to perceive government
and public administration systems differently. The role
of the state and its relationship with
bureaucracy and with citizens is undergoing a substantial
transformation not only in the
minds of the people but also in scientific thinking. In a
rapidly changing environment, public
administration has a major function and new aims that
must be clearly recognized. It remains
the best tool democracy can use to create fruitful
reciprocal relationships with citizens, but
on a higher and better level. To uncover the major tasks
and challenges facing the new
generation of public administration we require a cross-
disciplinary strategy and improved
integration of all available knowledge in the social
sciences aimed at redefining the
boundaries of public administration systems in its new
era.

Today, at the beginning of the 2 1'*' century, the

formation of public administration
as an interdisciplinary academic field seems certain.
Still, it is unfinished business