The document discusses the evolution of phases in public administration theory and practice from the 1800s to the present. It covers Classical Public Administration from 1800s-1950s, Development Administration from 1950s-1960s, New Public Administration in the 1970s, New Public Management from 1980s-1990s, and governance from the 1990s onward. Each phase brought new perspectives on the role of public administrators and their relationship to political and social goals.
The document discusses the evolution of phases in public administration theory and practice from the 1800s to the present. It covers Classical Public Administration from 1800s-1950s, Development Administration from 1950s-1960s, New Public Administration in the 1970s, New Public Management from 1980s-1990s, and governance from the 1990s onward. Each phase brought new perspectives on the role of public administrators and their relationship to political and social goals.
The document discusses the evolution of phases in public administration theory and practice from the 1800s to the present. It covers Classical Public Administration from 1800s-1950s, Development Administration from 1950s-1960s, New Public Administration in the 1970s, New Public Management from 1980s-1990s, and governance from the 1990s onward. Each phase brought new perspectives on the role of public administrators and their relationship to political and social goals.
The document discusses the evolution of phases in public administration theory and practice from the 1800s to the present. It covers Classical Public Administration from 1800s-1950s, Development Administration from 1950s-1960s, New Public Administration in the 1970s, New Public Management from 1980s-1990s, and governance from the 1990s onward. Each phase brought new perspectives on the role of public administrators and their relationship to political and social goals.
Practice Fall 2021 Lecture 4: New Public Administration and New Public Management Phases of PA
Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration
Classical Public Administration (1800s to 1950s)
Development Administration (1950s to 1960s) New Public Administration (1970s) New Public Management (1980s to 1990s) Reinventing Government (1990s) PA & Governance (1990s to the present) Classical Public Administration: 1800s-1950s
Wilson:
Public administration should be a separate
professional field
Politicians seek to get reelected; administrators need
to ensure stability
Distinction between politics and administration;
administration should be politics-free Classical Public Administration: 1800s-1950s
Leonard D. White “Introduction to the Study of Public Administration” (1926)
Administration is still an art; but it is being
transformed into a science.
Not much focus on politics-administration dichotomy;
emphasis on the managerial phase of administration. Modern Public Administration
Starts around 1950s
The sub phases include:
• Development Administration • New Public Administration • New Public Management and “Reinventing the Government” • Governance Development Administration (1950-1960s)
Emerged in 1950s/1960s Third world countries as the focal point The term was mostly applied to refer to developing countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. These developing countries struggled with development issues after World War II. Debates around DA - not addressing state functions such as public service delivery and enforcement of laws - Focusing on management of change to pursue development aspirations. - DA was built upon several critical assumptions: - development needs are the most important needs of developing countries, - the development needs of developing and developed countries are inherently different, - development can be administered, - the political, social, and cultural context of development can be easily altered. Identity Crisis of PA
“Identity crisis” of PA field led to the emergence of
the New Public Administration movement in the 1970s.
Lack of specific scientific/disciplinary identity
Interdisciplinary approach eventually took over
Embracing political science, management,
economy and finance New Public Administration
Emerged in 1968, at a conference in Syracuse
University (mostly young scholars)
1960s – time of turbulence and violence
Rejected classic PA theories
New principles: equity, morality, public good Public administrators should not be neutral; they should be committed to achieve public good and social equity New Public Administration New Public Administration Traditional PA is guilty of global inequality and injustice
Modern society is too individualistic and careless;
more participative political approach is needed
PA should focus on participatory management and
further social equality
People are political beings; people can only be fully
human if they have a chance to participate in political life New Public Administration Participatory citizenship citizens must be active participants
Public interest collective common good as a goal
Public policy focus on ‘public’ - participation is encouraged
Ethics-based approach Moral and ethical standards must be met New Public Management (1980-1990s)
Started in 1970s under Thatcher cabinet in the UK
“Government as business”: use of private sector and
business approaches in the public sector
More “client” or “customer” oriented, decentralization
of authority, “business oriented” practices New Public Management
Traditional PA shortcomings (according to NPM):
• Hierarchical public sector = delays and inflexibility
• Overly bureaucratic culture • Slow decision-making • State overregulation discourage private initiative • “Too much” State - government involved in too many activities • Poor performance of public sector • No accountability / corruption New Public Management
Main Features of NPM
• Focus on efficiency • Deregulation, competition and privatization • Decentralization of management • Citizens as “customers” • Accountability and performance measurement • Adaptability and review New Public Management NPM – Preconditions for Success
• Some level of economic development and market
economy
• Developed judicial system – “ the rule of law”
• Functioning administrative system should already
exist - upon which NPM can be implemented.
Applicable everywhere? New Public Management NPM did not succeed in many countries
Reasons: • Management is underdeveloped for market-oriented reforms • Corruption – if system is not corruption-free, NPM will create extra opportunities for private accumulation and patronage • Weak political institutions and lack of judicial system New Public Management Examples:
Britain under PM Thatcher (1979-1990)
Privatization of most industries Fight with trade unions Closure of coal mines New Public Management Examples:
New Zealand: classic case of NPM
Privatization of substantial public functions
Redesign of the personnel system in order to be more performance-oriented New productivity measures New Public Management Examples:
Australia: Deregulation of markets Public sector downsizing and privatization Less restrictive regulatory framework New Public Management Shortcomings and criticisms:
• Public sector and private sector are different
• Public sector cannot be driven purely by financial
efficiency – conflict with “public good” idea
• Priority for money over people
• “Customers” of public sector are not really
customers – no option to get the service elsewhere New Public Management
Shortcomings and criticisms:
• Some things only the public sector should do
• Outsourcing key functions of government just to
be financially efficient is risky
• Emphasis on people as ‘customers’ not ‘citizens’
• Undermining classical role/understanding of State
