DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Classical Public Administration

I. Emergence
Classical Public Administration/ Traditional management theory arose as a direct response to
the challenges presented by the Industrial Revolution. Here's why:
 The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the late 1700s to the late 1800s, resulted in
significant changes in the way people worked.
 The shift from small shops and farms to large factories, coupled with technological innovations
such as steam power, hydropower, and machinery like Eli Whitney's cotton gin, led to a rapid
increase in the pace of industry.
 This new industrial landscape created unprecedented challenges, including the need to
organize and manage large groups of people working alongside machines.
 Companies needed to find effective ways to maximize productivity in this new environment.
 Classical management theory emerged to address these new challenges by offering
systematic approaches to organizing and managing work.
 Response to the questions;
 How to organize people?
 How to maximize productivity?
 How to manage all the people?
II. Max Weber’s Bureaucracy
Origin
Max Weber, a German sociologist who lived from 1864 to 1920, is considered one of the
founders of sociology and a key figure in the development of Classical Public Administration.
His work on bureaucracy, written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has had a profound
and lasting impact on our understanding of how organizations, including government agencies,
function.
 Big Picture Approach
 1. The organization should look like a government as well as it’s legal system
 2. Legal-Rational Approach – abiding by all laws is being rational]
 3. Bureaucracy believes to remove traditional approach.
 4. Authority must be aligned to the position occupied
 5. Provide with clear rules will produce good performance
 6. Standardization
Max Weber was a German sociologist who wrote extensively on authority, power,
rationalization in society, and capitalism’s ability to create wealth for society. He is known for
his two major works – The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) and The Theory
of Social And Economic Organization (1920).
Max Weber also created what he called the Ideal Type of Bureaucracy, which enabled him to
study all aspects of bureaucracy more scientifically than had ever been done before then. He
believed that a bureaucrat’s ideal type is the ultimate goal in order to avoid any corruption. Max
Weber’s type of bureaucracy is an administration that upholds the rules and regulations with
strict adherence to protocol. The guidelines are written, followed, and enforced consistently
from employee to employee.
Max Weber believed that a bureaucrat’s ideal type is the ultimate goal in order to avoid any
corruption.
Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is a system of rules and procedures that are designed to make the operation of
an organization or society as efficient, effective, and rational as possible.
 1. Formal bureaucratic systems have explicit written rules that are enforced by the
organization’s hierarchical structure. They are often characterized by impersonality, rigidity,
inefficiency, and inflexibility.
2. Informal bureaucratic systems operate outside of any formalized process with only implicit
agreements between individuals who work together regularly. These may include unwritten
norms about how decisions should be made or what information should be shared.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy
 Bureaucracy is a system of rules that are enforced by an organization (Written rules and
regulations)
 Bureaucracies can be used to control and regulate the behavior of people in organizations
 Bureaucracy is often associated with red-tape, which refers to excessive bureaucracy or
complicated administrative procedures that inhibit quick decisions and action
 Bureaucracy is a system of organization where the power to make decisions and enforce them
rests with one person or group
 Bureaucracy has been criticized for being too rigid and not allowing enough flexibility
 Bureaucracies are often seen as inefficient because they require so much paperwork, but this
can be countered using computers to automate some processes
 Bureaucracy is a system of organization that is characterized by hierarchical levels and the
rule of law
 Bureaucracies are typically found in large organizations, such as governments or corporations.
(The word bureaucracy comes from French and means office work)
 Standardized procedures, methods, and practice
 Bureaucracy is impersonal because it does not involve direct contact between the bureaucrat
and those being served by the bureaucracy
 Bureaucracies are characterized by labor division with specific tasks assigned to particular
individuals or groups of individuals within the organization
 The rule-making authority for a bureaucracy resides in its top managers
Six Principles of Bureaucracy
Max Weber identified six bureaucracy principles: rationality, hierarchy, expertise, rules-based
decision making, formalization, and specialization.
Principle of Authority Hierarchy
Bureaucratic structures can be traced back to medieval and Roman law, which rested upon
hierarchy and authority principles. A bureaucratic organization has two fundamental
components:
1. Chains of command, and
2. Positional roles or functions in an organization
These two components form what’s called an Authority Hierarchy.
The importance of the Authority Hierarchy comes from the fact that it provides formalized rules
for who gets to give orders to whom within an organization. Naturally, this creates power
dynamics with those at higher levels giving commands to those lower down in rank within
formalized channels.
Principle of Formal Rules and Regulations
The Formal Rules and Regulations in an ideal bureaucracy are the guidelines that dictate how
things should be done. The documents on which these rules and regulations rest include
manuals, directives, handbooks, instructions, policies, etc. They provide a clear definition of
what needs to happen for an organization to function appropriately.
Principle of Division of Labour (Specializations)
Labor expert Adam Smith was the first to theorize about specialization . He wrote:
 It is the great multiplication of the productions of all kinds which occasions, in a well-governed
society, such a plentiful addition to the general stock of the community.
Max Weber argued that a well-functioning bureaucracy that was been designed with the
division of labor in mind will be more efficient and productive than one without it.
Without labor division, people would have to do many tasks that they are not equipped for, and
everything becomes incomplete or unorganized because there isn’t enough time to complete
them all simultaneously as another task begins.
This makes productivity difficult and decreases efficiency. With specialization (division), quality
improves and costs decrease as only those qualified perform the tasks.
Principle of Impersonality
Bureaucracy should be autonomous, impersonal, and impartial to achieve the goals of a
bureaucracy. According to Weber, the relationship between employees must be professional.
The impersonal bureaucratic atmosphere is structured to foster decision-making solely on
evidence and critical thought.
The rules are well defined, clear and are applied in the same way to everyone across the
board. The rules are there to prevent favoritism, nepotism and the participation of outsiders or
political interference with the organization’s purpose.
Principle of Career Orientation (Merit-Based)
The principle of Career Orientation in ideal bureaucracy is that every employee has a unique
set of skills. It’s the employer’s responsibility to match their employees with the jobs that best
suit them.
In other words, employees should be given career paths where they can grow into different
roles over time, while still getting opportunities to try new things. This way, everybody wins!
Principle of Formal Selection Process
Another key concept in an ideal bureaucracy is that management can inspire workers to
develop a long-term career in the company by providing them with job security
and performance-based rewards.
The five steps of the formal selection process in an ideal bureaucracy are:
1. Bureaucratic jobs available which one should be applied to
2. Applying for these positions.
3. Interviewing for those openings
4. Selecting someone from this pool of applicants to get hired
5. Finding replacements as needed when there is a vacancy
Advantages
Bureaucracy is the use of rules and regulations to maintain order in an organization.
Bureaucracies are necessary for large organizations because they provide a way to make
decisions and allocate resources.
 Bureaucracies are important because they allow people who work within them to specialize in
specific areas, which can be more efficient than having everyone do everything
 Advantages of bureaucracy include efficiency, predictability, and consistency
 The principle of unity or solidarity, which encourages people to work together as a team with
one goal in mind: efficiency and effectiveness
 The principle of consistency, meaning that bureaucracy must be applied uniformly across all
situations
  Rationality in bureaucracy means that bureaucracies are efficient because they have clear
procedures for employees’ jobs
 Hierarchy means that there are different levels within the organization, with people in higher
positions having more power than those in lower positions. This allows for an efficient division
of labor among workers who specialize in certain tasks
 Expertise in bureaucracy refers to the idea that bureaucrats need to be trained experts on
doing their jobs well, not making mistakes, or taking too much time doing things
 The principle of authority or power, which is delegated to those who are in charge.
Disadvantages
 The bureaucratic theory is a way of understanding organizations as systems that are primarily
characterized by hierarchical chains of command and control
 The principle of hierarchy & discipline, which requires that everyone follow orders from their
superiors without question. This can lead to an autocratic organization
 The bureaucratic theory’s limitations include its inability to account for the complexities
associated with organizational change, the lack of attention to informal power structures in
organizations, and an overemphasis on rationality
 The bureaucratic theory is a sociological perspective that emphasizes the need for order and
efficiency in society
 The theory’s proponents argue that bureaucracy can be used to address problems of power,
authority, hierarchy, and social inequality
 The other disadvantages of bureaucracy include slow decision-making processes, inflexible
policies, and red tape
Think Insights (October 31, 2024) Bureaucracy – Six Principles Of Max Weber. Retrieved from
https://thinkinsights.net/strategy/bureaucracy-max-weber/.

III. Fredrick Winslow Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory (Micro Approach)

Frederick Winslow Taylor, often called the "father of scientific management," developed his
theory in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This theory emerged during the Industrial Revolution,
a time of rapid industrial growth and change. Taylor believed that the traditional "rule of thumb"
approach to work was inefficient and that applying scientific principles could significantly improve
productivity. His Scientific Management Theory focuses on analyzing and optimizing work processes
to find the "one best way" to perform a task.
Scientific management theory is a method of improving efficiency in the workforce. As its name
implies, this management theory uses scientific methods to assess work processes.
Four Principles of Scientific Management:
Taylor's Scientific Management Theory is based on four core principles:
 Scientifically Analyze Work Processes: Instead of relying on intuition or tradition, Taylor
advocated for a scientific approach to analyzing tasks. This involves breaking down jobs into
smaller elements and studying each element to determine the most efficient way to perform it.
Taylor used time and motion studies to determine how much time and how many motions each
task should take. For instance, he dramatically improved the efficiency of bricklaying by
studying the process and redesigning the workspace to reduce unnecessary movements.
o Use the scientific method to determine the most efficient way to complete a task. Focus
on increasing productivity and profits.
o Replace working by "rule of thumb," or simple habit and common sense, and instead
use the scientific method to study work and determine the most efficient way to perform
specific tasks.
  Select, Train, and Develop Workers: Taylor emphasized the importance of carefully selecting
workers with the right skills and abilities for specific jobs [3]. He also believed in providing
proper training and ongoing development to enhance their skills and ensure they are
performing tasks optimally.
o Rather than simply assign workers to just any job, match workers to their jobs based on
capability and motivation, and train them to work at maximum efficiency.
o Get to know your workers, discover what they’re good at, and place them where their
skills will be the most useful.
 Collaboration Between Management and Workers: Taylor believed that management and
workers should work together harmoniously to achieve shared goals [3]. This collaboration
involved open communication, clear expectations, and a focus on achieving the best possible
outcomes for both the organization and its employees.
o Monitor worker performance, and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that
they're using the most efficient ways of working.
o Observe what your workers are doing while they are on the clock so that you can
quickly address any problems. If some workers are confused or unproductive, it is up to
their managers to step in and fix the issue.
 Divide Tasks into Specialized Roles: To maximize efficiency, Taylor proposed dividing work
into specialized roles, with each worker focusing on a specific aspect of the job [3]. This
specialization allows individuals to become experts in their assigned tasks, leading to
increased speed and accuracy.
o Allocate the work between managers and workers so that the managers spend their
time planning and training, allowing the workers to perform their tasks efficiently.
o Make sure that managers understand how to plan and train workers and that workers
understand how to implement those plans.
Strengths of Scientific Management Theory:
 Replaces Rule of Thumb with Scientific Techniques: By using scientific methods to
analyze and design work processes, Taylor's theory eliminates guesswork and promotes a
more systematic and efficient approach [3]. This leads to better planning, standardized
procedures, and increased productivity.
 Systematic Selection and Training: The emphasis on proper worker selection and training
ensures that individuals are well-suited for their roles and equipped with the necessary skills
[3]. This improves the overall quality of work and reduces errors and inefficiencies.
 Harmonious Relationship Between Management and Workers: By fostering
collaboration between managers and workers, the theory encourages a more cooperative
and productive work environment [3]. This helps minimize conflicts and improve morale.
 Equal Division of Responsibilities: The clear division of tasks and responsibilities ensures
that everyone knows what is expected of them [3]. This promotes accountability and
reduces confusion or duplication of effort.
 Standardization: The theory promotes the standardization of tools, equipment, and
methods [3]. This consistency ensures that tasks are performed in a uniform and predictable
manner, leading to improved quality and efficiency.
 Detailed Instructions and Constant Guidance: Workers receive detailed instructions and
ongoing guidance, ensuring they are performing tasks correctly and efficiently [3]. This helps
minimize errors and improve the learning curve for new employees.
 Incentive Wage System: The theory often incorporates incentive wage systems that reward
workers for higher production levels [3]. This can motivate employees to work harder and
strive for greater efficiency.
 Elimination of Waste: By optimizing processes and standardizing methods, the theory
helps eliminate waste and reduce unnecessary expenses [3]. This leads to cost savings and
increased profitability for the organization.
 Customer Satisfaction: By focusing on efficiency and quality, the theory ultimately aims to
provide customers with high-quality products at competitive prices [3]. This customer-centric
approach can lead to increased customer satisfaction and loyalty.
https://www.villanovau.com/articles/leadership/scientific-management-theory-explained/
 https://www.mindtools.com/anx8725/frederick-taylor-and-scientific-management

IV. Henry Fayol’s Administrative Management Theory

Administrative Management Theory (AMT)

The Administrative Management Theory (AMT), developed by Henri Fayol, a French engineer
and theorist, focuses on how to effectively manage organizations as a whole, unlike
Scientific Management which focuses on individual tasks. Fayol, known as the "father of
modern management theory," believed that management skills could be taught systematically,
unlike technical skills. His theory emerged as a response to the challenges posed by the
Industrial Revolution, where large, complex organizations needed new management
approaches. Similar to Taylor and Weber, Fayol addressed the questions of efficient
organization, maximizing productivity, and managing people in the rapidly changing industrial
landscape.
Fayol's 14 Principles of Management
Fayol developed 14 principles of management that form the foundation of AMT:
 Division of Work: Similar to Taylor's specialization principle, Fayol advocated dividing tasks
among individuals to enhance efficiency and skill development.
 Authority and Responsibility: Managers need the authority to give instructions and ensure
compliance, coupled with the responsibility for their actions.
 Discipline: Maintaining order and efficiency requires employees to adhere to rules and
regulations, fostered through mutual respect.
 Unity of Command: Each employee should report to only one manager to avoid confusion
and maintain clear lines of authority.
 Unity of Direction: All efforts within an organization should be aligned towards a common
objective, guided by a unified plan.
 Subordination of Individual Interest to General Interest: The organization's overall interests
should take precedence over individual interests.
 Remuneration: Fair compensation, including financial and non-financial incentives, is
essential for employee motivation and performance. This concept aligns with Taylor's
emphasis on motivating workers through financial rewards.
 Centralization: This principle refers to concentrating power and decision-making authority
within top management. While Fayol recognized the need for a balance, he favored a top-
down approach, unlike today's trend toward flatter organizational structures.
 Scalar Chain: A clear and formal chain of command (hierarchy) ensures smooth
communication and defines each employee's position within the organization.
 Order: Resources and personnel should be placed in the right place at the right time to avoid
misuse and maintain order.
 Equity: Managers should treat employees with kindness and justice to foster loyalty and
devotion.
 Stability of Tenure of Personnel: Minimizing staff turnover promotes stability and efficiency,
as frequent changes disrupt operations and incur training costs.
 Initiative: Employees should be encouraged to take initiative, contribute ideas, and participate
in improving their work.
 Esprit de Corps: Building team spirit, unity, and cooperation among employees fosters a
positive work environment and enhances productivity.
Strengths of Administrative Management Theory:
  Universal Applicability: Fayol's principles are considered widely applicable to various
organizations and management levels, offering a broad framework for management practice.
 Clear Organizational Structure: AMT provides a structure that promotes order, discipline,
and prevents conflicts by defining roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority. This mirrors
Weber's concept of a well-defined hierarchy and specialized roles.
 Employee Motivation: Fair compensation and a system of rewards for good performance
incentivize employees and drive better results.
 Decisive Leadership: The hierarchical structure with top management as decisive leaders
facilitates quick decision-making and implementation.
 Teamwork: AMT emphasizes team unity and cooperation to achieve shared goals,
recognizing that teams with diverse skills can compensate for individual shortcomings.
Limitations of Administrative Management Theory:
 Mechanistic Approach: AMT can be criticized for treating employees like machines,
overlooking their individual needs and potential. This can stifle creativity and innovation.
 Overlooking Human Relations: The theory doesn't sufficiently address the social and
emotional aspects of work, which can affect employee satisfaction and teamwork.
 Rigidity in Dynamic Environments: AMT's rigid principles may not be suitable for today's
rapidly changing and unpredictable business environment.
 Limited Employee Empowerment: The top-down approach can discourage employee
involvement in decision-making, limiting their initiative and sense of ownership.
 Neglect of Informal Networks: The focus on formal structures may overlook the importance
of informal communication networks, potentially hindering information flow.
Despite its limitations, AMT remains a foundational theory in management studies. Its influence can
be seen in the structured organization of modern workplaces, and subsequent management theories
often react to or build upon Fayol's principles.
V. Conclusion
Classical Public Administration follows the following principles; hierarchy, division of work,
standardization, centralization, separation of personal, hiring the best, and remuneration.
Politics-Administration Dichotomy
Separating Politics and Administration
The politics-administration dichotomy is a long-standing concept in public administration that
suggests a separation between the realms of politics and administration [1, 2]. While the term itself is
more prevalent in Anglo-American scholarship, the underlying idea of this separation can be found in
various forms across different academic traditions [3].
The sources identify three main perspectives on this dichotomy:
 Separation School: This school of thought advocates for a clear division between politics
and administration for both practical and normative reasons [4]. This separation aims to
minimize political influence on public administration and reduce potential conflicts [5].
Proponents argue that politics should focus on providing policy guidance, while administration
should concentrate on neutral and competent implementation [4]. This view seeks to prevent
corruption stemming from partisan influences on administrative decisions [5].
 Political School: In contrast, the political school rejects the distinction between politics and
administration, viewing them as inseparable parts of the political process [6, 7]. This school
acknowledges the significant role administrators play in policymaking due to factors like
ambiguous legislation, the technical expertise required, and the difficulty in monitoring
bureaucratic behavior [6, 7].
 Interaction School: This school seeks a middle ground, acknowledging the differences
between politics and administration but emphasizing collaboration between elected officials
and administrators [8, 9]. It recognizes the distinct perspectives and roles of each group while
advocating for overlapping roles and reciprocal influence in policy and administration
matters [10]. Ideally, this interaction fosters a productive partnership where administrators
assist elected officials in the policy process while remaining accountable to them [9, 10].
The sources acknowledge the controversy surrounding the politics-administration dichotomy,
particularly its empirical validity [2, 11]. Critics argue that the dichotomy is an oversimplification of
reality, failing to account for the inherent intermingling of politics and administration [12-14].
Empirical studies have shown that a strict functional division does not necessarily lead to better policy
implementation, and that administrators inevitably engage in political activities [15, 16].
Despite these criticisms, the concept of the politics-administration dichotomy persists in both
academic discourse and practical application [2, 17]. The sources highlight three dimensions of
meaning associated with this dichotomy:
 Normative/Prescriptive: This perspective argues that politics and administration should be
separate [18, 19]. It encompasses arguments for insulating administration from political
interference to ensure efficient functioning, as well as for shielding politics from bureaucratic
dominance to uphold democratic accountability [19, 20]. However, critics contend that such
separation is impractical and even undesirable, given the inevitable interplay between the two
spheres [12, 21, 22].
 Empirical/Descriptive: This view posits that politics and administration are separate in reality
[23]. However, it faces significant challenges due to the lack of empirical evidence supporting a
clear-cut separation [13, 14, 16, 24]. Attempts to empirically validate the normative separation
have largely been unsuccessful, demonstrating the intertwined nature of politics and
administration in practice [15].
 Analytical/Ideal Typical: This perspective suggests that conceptually separating politics and
administration can be a useful tool for understanding their relationship [24, 25]. It employs the
idea of a Weberian ideal type, acknowledging that while a complete separation might not
exist in reality, the concept helps analyze the differences and interactions between the two
[24]. This approach recognizes the value of the distinction without claiming its empirical truth,
allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play [26, 27].
In conclusion, the sources suggest that while the normative and empirical understandings of the
politics-administration dichotomy are widely contested, the analytical dimension remains valuable.
By using the concept as an analytical tool, researchers and practitioners can better understand the
intricate relationship between politics and administration, recognizing both their distinct characteristics
and their inevitable intermingling in the practice of governance [22, 28]. This approach moves beyond
simplistic notions of separation or fusion, allowing for a more sophisticated and nuanced
understanding of the complex dynamics at play in public administration.
Different Schools, Different Views on Politics and Administration
The sources outline three distinct schools of thought – the Separation, Political, and Interaction
schools – that offer contrasting perspectives on the relationship between politics and administration.
Here's a breakdown of their key differences:
1. The Nature of the Distinction: Dichotomy or Intertwined?
 Separation School: The most striking difference lies in how each school views the
fundamental distinction between politics and administration. The Separation School views
this distinction as a dichotomy, a clear division of labor and authority between elected officials
and appointed administrators [1, 2]. This perspective emphasizes the separateness of the two
spheres, arguing that politics should set the policy direction while administration focuses on
neutral and competent implementation [2-4].
 Political School: In stark contrast, the Political School rejects the idea of a dichotomy,
asserting that politics and administration are inseparable and intertwined [4-6]. This school
argues that administrators are inherently involved in policymaking, influenced by factors like
vague legislation, technical expertise, and the dynamics of bureaucratic behavior [5].
 Interaction School: As a middle ground, the Interaction School acknowledges the
differences between politics and administration but emphasizes their ongoing cooperation
[4, 6]. This school accepts that there are logical, psychological, and value-based distinctions
between elected and administrative officials [7]. However, it underscores the necessity of
collaboration due to the complexity of the policy environment and the need for both political
responsiveness and administrative competence [8-10].
2. The Relationship Dynamic: Superior-Subordinate or Partners?
The schools also diverge in their understanding of the power dynamic between elected officials and
administrators:
 Separation School: This school envisions a superior-subordinate relationship where
administrators are accountable to elected officials and primarily responsible for carrying out
their directives [4, 11]. The separation is intended to minimize political influence on
administration and prevent corruption that could arise from partisan considerations [12]. This
model safeguards accountability by maintaining a clear hierarchy.
 Political School: Rejecting this hierarchical view, the Political School emphasizes equality or
even competition between elected officials and administrators [4]. This perspective sees
administrators as active participants in the political process, advocating for policy positions
and influencing decision-making [5, 13]. The legitimacy of their actions is judged by the
desirability of the policy outcomes rather than strict adherence to hierarchical authority [14].
 Interaction School: The Interaction School leans towards a partnership model, albeit with a
crucial caveat: elected officials are the senior partners [4, 6, 8]. This model calls for
collaboration and mutual deference between elected and administrative officials, allowing for
overlapping roles and reciprocal influence in policy and administration issues [10]. However, it
stresses the importance of administrators remaining accountable and responsive to the elected
body, upholding political supremacy while leveraging administrative expertise [9].
3. The Role of Public Administrators: Implementers or Policymakers?
Finally, the schools differ significantly in how they perceive the policy role of public administrators:
 Separation School: This school advocates a limited policy role for administrators, confining
them to providing policy advice to elected officials and faithfully implementing enacted
 policies [2, 15]. This perspective emphasizes neutral competence, arguing that administrators
should contribute their expertise without promoting personal policy preferences [16, 17].
 Political School: The Political School champions a broad policy role for administrators,
encouraging them to actively engage in policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation
[5, 15]. This school sees administrators as possessing both technical expertise and a
responsibility to advance desirable policy goals, even challenging the directives of elected
officials if they deem it necessary [13, 14].
 Interaction School: The Interaction School stakes out a middle ground, supporting a policy
role that includes policy formulation but excludes setting the broad goals and mission
which remains the prerogative of elected officials [15]. This approach allows for administrators
to shape policy details and contribute their expertise to the process while remaining bound by
the overall direction set by the elected body [6, 8]. It seeks to balance political responsiveness
with administrative competence, fostering a collaborative approach to policymaking.
By understanding these key distinctions, we can better appreciate the nuances in how each school
approaches the complex and often contentious relationship between politics and administration. This
awareness helps us critically evaluate the arguments presented by each school and consider their
implications for the practice of public administration.
Modern Management in Public Administration
Modern Management in Public Administration refers to contemporary approaches and theories that
evolved in response to the limitations of classical public administration. It emphasizes flexibility,
innovation, participatory decision-making, and responsiveness to the dynamic needs of society.
Unlike the rigid structures of classical theories, modern management integrates human behavior,
technological advancements, and adaptability into the administrative process.
The sources describe modern management in public administration as a response to the limitations of
traditional public administration. Traditional public administration, with its hierarchical structure
and emphasis on rules and regulations, was seen as too slow, cumbersome, and inflexible to
meet the demands of the information age. [1, 2]
Modern management emerged due to:
 Technological advancements: The rapid pace of technological change required
organizations to be more adaptable and responsive. [3]
 Increased complexity of public issues: Public administration was facing increasingly
complex challenges, requiring more sophisticated and adaptable approaches to management.
[3]
Key Principles of Modern Management in Public Administration:
 Decentralization: Modern management approaches promote decentralization, empowering
lower-level managers and employees to make decisions. This allows organizations to respond
more quickly to changes and be more adaptable. [2, 4]
 Efficiency: Modern management emphasizes efficiency, seeking to achieve the best results
with the fewest resources. [1, 5, 6]
 People-Centered Culture: While focusing on efficiency, modern management also
acknowledges the importance of a people-centered culture that values employee contributions.
[3]
 Holistic View of Organizations: Modern management approaches, such as the Systems
Model, view organizations as part of a larger system and manage them holistically. This
involves considering the relationships between different parts of the organization and their
impact on the overall system. [7] It views organization as systems that must maintain
equilibrium.
 Contingency Approach: Recognizing that there is no single "best" way to manage, the
contingency approach advocates for tailoring management practices to specific situations. [7]
 Total Quality Management: This approach emphasizes the importance of quality
management involving everyone and everything in the organization. Leadership is key in
inspiring and managing quality. [7]
 Learning Organization: As advocated by Peter Senge, this approach promotes continuous
learning for individuals and the organization. Organizations thrive through constant learning
and adaptation. [8]
 Re-engineering: This approach calls for overhauling outdated organizational processes,
potentially redesigning functions from the ground up for greater effectiveness. [8]
Development Administration
The concept of Development Administration is a development of the post 1945 era. Following
reasons are responsible for the emergence of this concept
Reason :
1. Emergence of newly independent developing countries:
The traditional concept of public Administration as ‘law and order machinery or revenue
administration underwent transformation with the emergence of the ‘Welfare state’ during the 20th
century. Also It a was response to the emergence of the ‘Newly Independent states’ in Asia and
Africa, These countries have problems of poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, malnutrition etc. In these
countries, the government and its administrative machinery are looked upon as agents of change.
The necessities have made the administration in developing countries development - oriented.
2. Development schemes in the developing countries:
These developments have had a profound impact on the public administration. The concern with
administration for development has compelled attempts to formulate a system of thought capable of
integrating complex socio-economic and political systems hitherto considered to be outside the area
of public administration. Further, most developing countries have realized that national development
is essentially an integrated process of change. It is a dynamic process directed towards transforming
the entire society, enmeshing its economic, social, political and administrative aspects, for an alround,
balanced change.
3. Establishment of comparative Administration group in 1960:
D. Waldo, Fred Riggs, Weidner were talk of New Public Adminstration. These scholars in 1968, in
Minnibook conference, attempted to define public Administration anew. They focussed on the concept
of development administration, in different ecological settings, operates in order to achieve a set of
social goals.
Meaning and definitions of development administration:
Weidner stated that Development Administration means “an action oriented and goal-oriented
administrative systems.” Weidner emphasised that the study of development administration can help
to identify the conditions under which a maximum rate of development is sought and obtained. He
contended that existing models for comparison were limited in their usefulness because they made
inadquate provision for social change. He suggested development administration as a separate focus
for research, the end being to relate different administrative roles, practices, organisational
arrangements and procedures to the maximising of development objectives. Pai Panadikar identifies
Development Administration with “administration of planned change.
Hallmarks of Development Administration
1. Change - oriented
Development administration is change-oriented. Traditional administration which was oriented
towards the maintenance of stability and statusquo. Hence, Pai Panandikar said development
Administration means ‘administration of planned change’. The planned development is
intended to achieve specific results within the specified time.
2. Goal-oriented and result-oriented
It is result-oriented. It expects specific results and expresses in most areas clearcut norms of
performance. Consequently, it would also be judged on the basis of results achieved.
3. Citizen participation
Development being a process of social and economic change, citizen participation in the task
of administration is vital. The public servants must be able to carry the citizens with them and
draw them activety into the developmental processes. To basic change in the outlook of the
civil servants.
4. Commitment to development
Development administration requires a firm commitment, a sense of involvement and concern
on the part of civil servants, if the goals of development are to be realised.
5. Integrated and holistic process
Development administration is inter-related and holistic process of change. It refers to the
structure, organisation and behaviour necessary for the implementation of schemes and
programmes of socio-economic change undertaken by the governments of developing
nations.”
 6. It has two sides
Firstly, it refers to the administration of developmental programmes, the methods used by
large-scale organizations, especially governments, to implement policies and plans designed
to meet developmental goals. Secondly, Development Administration involves the
strengthening of administrative capabilities. These two aspects are intertwined in development
administration.
7. Its scope of operation is wide
Traditional public administration was limited to its function of maintaining law and order. But
the scope of development administration is wider.
8. Stress on planning
It is planned change. The administrative capabilities are strengthened to achieve
developmental goals. This objective is linked with planning. The planned development is
intended to achieve specific results within the specified time.
9. Believes in decentralization
Traditional administration believes in centralization. But Development administration believes
in decentralization.
Difference between traditional public administration and Development Administration:
Development Administration
1. change – oriented
2. goal and result oriented
3. flexible and dynamic
4. Its objectives are complex and multiple
5. Concerned with new tasks.
6. believes in decentralization
7. stress on planning
8. Creative and innovative
9. Stress on participation of people

Traditional Public Administration

1. Status-quo oriented
2. emphasis on economy and efficiency
3. It is hierarchical and rigid.
4. Its objectives are simple and limited.
5. Concerned with routine operations.
6. believes in centralization.
7. Does not rely much on planning.
8. It resists organisational change.
9. Stress on directions from authority
Conclusion:
Though there is difference in public administration and Development administration, yet both are
supplimentary to eachother. One cannot sustain in the absence of another.
NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Introduction
In the evolution of Public Administration one more stage is the emergence of “New Public
Administration.” During 1960s it was found that the science of Public Administration displayed
unawareness of numerous socio-economic and political problems as well as its inadequacy to
offer any solution to the problems.
Emergence
In 1967, American Academy of political and social science organised a conference in
Philedelphia. The topic was “The Theory and practice of Public Administration : Scope,
objectives and methods.” In this conference participants expressed their views and after
discussion following points emerged
1. Bureaucracy should be studied structurally as well as functionally.
2. Definition of the subject is as difficult as de-lineation of its scope.
3. A hierarchical view of organisational authority needs to be changed; administrators must
view workers as “coordinates” rather than ‘subordinates’,
4. Policy and political considerations are replacing management concerns as the major focus
of public Administration.
5. Future administrators should be trained in professional schools. Public Administration
courses should emphasis not only Administrative organisation and procedures but also in
interdisciplinary approach.
6. Public Administration has not been able to deal with societal problems.
Conclusion of the discussion was - Public Administration should be viewed as an acadmic
discipline, as a field exercise and as administration in the public interest.
In 1968 in Minnowbrook conference Dwight Waldo expressed following points about new Public
Administration.
1. What is the proper terrain of Public Administration?
2. What are the logics of inquiry appropriate to the tarrain?
3. What is the social relevance of knowledge in Public Administration?
In 1971, Frank Marini published a book ‘Towards a new Public Administration’ New Public
Administration emphasis on the following themes:
1. Rejected the value neutral view - The new Public Administration made clear its basic
normative concern in administrative studies. It rejected the value neutral view taken by
behavioural political science.
2. Less generic and more public - New Public Administration stresses on innovation and
change. Hence, it take more public and client oriented view.
3. Stress on Social equity - The protagonists of new Public Administration state that the
distributive functions and impact of governmental institutions should be Public Administration’s
basic concern. The purpose of public action should be the reduction of economic and social
disparities and the enhancement of life opportunities for all social groups. They take action-
oriented stand and said that Public Administrators should work for the removal of the wrongs of
society.
4. Anti-bureaucratic, anti-theoretic and anti-technical - To serve the cause of social equity
is to actively work for social change. The attack is on the status-quo and against the powerful
interest entrenched in permanent institutions.
 5. Take client-oriented and socially Conscious view - In the third - world countries where
Public Administration is in dire need of basic, qualitative transformation. New Public
Administration displays an intense concern for relevant societal problems.
6. Stress on Decentralization of Administrative process - New Public Administration give
importance to Institutional pluralism. Functions, responsibilities should be distributed in many
parts.
7. Stress on qualitative transformation - It stresses ethics and values. It lays emphasis on
change. The study of formal organisation, its structure and processes is of secondary
importance to the new theorists.
According to this new approach the most important need of the times is to be alive to the
contemporary issue and problems with a view to finding ways and means for their solution, and
to have organisational change to suit the changing times.
Conclusion - Public Administration of the state will become more meaning and useful with this
characteristics of new Public Administration
New Public Administration: Multi-faceted “Agential” Leadership
 Sustain dialogue amidst diverse interests
 Stewardship/trusteeship
 Temper the influence over public opinion for long term public interests
 Protection of fundamental rights and rule of law
 Educators and nurturers of citizen roles in democratic process
 Constitutiveness, which involves presenting citizens with choices which will define their
character as a common people
New Public Management and Reinventing Government
 New Public Management (NPM):
o NPM represents a significant shift from traditional public administration, aiming to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector organizations by adopting
private sector management principles and practices.
o The core of NPM lies in emphasizing the "Three Es": Efficiency, Economy, and
Effectiveness.
o Theoretical foundations of NPM:
 Public Choice Theory: This theory criticizes the bureaucratic model for its
inefficiency and advocates for reducing government intervention by promoting
privatization and decentralization to enhance service quality and minimize costs.
 Neo-Taylorism: This approach applies business-like efficiency techniques to
public administration, focusing on measurable performance goals, output-driven
management, and decentralization to streamline processes, eliminate waste, and
prioritize productivity.
 Reinventing Government:
o This movement, also referred to as administrative reform or new public management in
various contexts, has evolved into a comprehensive approach to public administration
and government as a whole over the past fifteen years.
o It emerged from a combination of political and economic developments, challenging
traditional bureaucratic structures.
o Osborne and Gaebler's Ten Principles of Reinventing Government:
 Catalytic government: Steering rather than rowing, focusing on guiding and
facilitating rather than direct control.
 Community-owned government: Empowering communities to address their
own issues.
 Competitive government: Introducing competition in service delivery to reward
efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
 Mission-driven government: Shifting from rule-based to purpose-oriented
governance.
 Result-oriented government: Prioritizing outcomes and target achievement.
 Customer-driven government: Focusing on citizen needs and satisfaction.
 Enterprising government: Emphasizing revenue generation and resource
mobilization.
 Anticipatory government: Identifying and preventing problems proactively.
 Decentralized government: Promoting participation and teamwork over
hierarchical structures.
 Market-oriented government: Utilizing market forces to drive positive change.
o The reinventing government movement criticizes the bureaucratic model, which it
considers inherently inefficient.