Student No.

2022-22135

FINAL EXAM PA 201

Question No. 1

The discipline of the field of public administration can be divided into two major
phases: the traditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s to the modern phase,
from the 1950s to the present. The Modern phase can be further divided into the following
sub-phases: development administration (1950s to the 60s), new public administration (1960s
to the 70s), new public management and reinventing governance (1980s into the 90s) and
finally public administration as governance (1990s into the present). The following is an
indicative matrix that reflects the phases in the evolution of public administration.

Phase Indicative Period

Traditional / Classical Public Administration 1800s to 1950s
Modern Public Administration 1950 to the present
Development Administration (1950s to 1960s)
New Public Administration (1970s)
New Public Management (1980s to 1990s)
Reinventing Government (1990s)
PA as Governance (1990s to the present)

Traditional / Classical Public Administration

Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It has been suggested that
it is as old as the ancient empires of China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia.
The institutionalization of administrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of
public administration. Such arrangement, according to Caiden (1982), has existed in all
societies. All societies are devoted to advancing the general welfare or the public interest. The
idea that “public administration should not be considered administration of the public but
administration for the public” has been practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi,
in Confucianism and in the funeral oration of Pericles. (Caiden 1982: 7) In other words, the
idea of client-oriented public administration has its roots in ancient public administration.
 Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administration must have had
originated from monarchial Europe where household officials were divided into two groups:
one in charge of public affairs, i.e. the administration of justice, finance, training of armies,
and the other is responsible for personal services. Rutgers (1998) supports this claim that (i.e.
royal) administration had already been manifested way back in the mid 17th century and
early 18th century in Prussia. F.K. Medikus (as cited in Rutgers 1998) likewise argued on the
study of public administration and its positions amidst the sciences in the 18th century. He
advocated “cameralism” and claimed that it should be treated as an autonomous field of study
of great importance to the state. Cameral science is designed to prepare potential public
officials for government service. This practice flourished in Europe until the 21st century but
it was, in the long run, replaced by administrative law and legal studies.

1800s to 1950s
If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study have to be traced, the
tendency is to draw on Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 classic essay, “The Study of Public
Administration,” which was written at the height of Progressive Movement in the US. It was
in that essay that there was a serious claim that public administration should be a self-
conscious, professional field. Wilson suggested the distinction between politics and
administration i.e. administration should be politics-free and that “the field of administration
is the field of business;” (Wilson 1953: 7 1) thus, establishing what became known as the
“politics-administration” dichotomy. Although Wilson set a demarcation line between politics
and administration, Frank Goodnow (1900), the “Father of American Public Administration,”
presented a more meticulous examination of politics-administration dichotomy in his book,
“Politics and Administration” that “supplanted the traditional concern with the separation of
powers among the various branches of the government.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 2)
Politics-administration dichotomy has provoked long-running debates which persist until
today. It may be argued though that, as far as the Philippine experience is concerned, the
dichotomy is artificial and that in practice, power and partisan politics have had a
disproportionate influence upon the workings of public administration in the Philippines.
Max Weber (1946), a German sociologist who is known as the “Father of Modern
Sociology,” made a lucid descriptive analysis of bureaucratic organizations. He presented
some major variables or features of bureaucracy such as: hierarchy, division of labor,
formally written rules and procedures, impersonality and neutrality; hence, providing a
reference point in evaluating both the good and bad effects of bureaucratic structures. (Weber
1946 as cited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997)
It was in 1926 that the first text in the field of public administration was written by
Leonard D. White. His book, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, is one of the
most influential texts in public administration to date. One of his assumptions was that
administration is still an art. He, however, recognized the ideal of transforming it into a
science. Interestingly, his work avoided the potential pitfalls of the politics-administration
dichotomy but rather concentrated on emphasizing the managerial phase of administration.

From Classical, Neo-Classical to Integrative/Modern Organization Theories

Frederick Taylor, dubbed as the “Father of Scientific Management,” is best known for
his “one best way approach” in accomplishing task. Classical organization theory evolved
from this notion. Another popular manifestation of this approach was that of Luther Gulick’s
POSDCORB methodologies. Gulick and Urwick (1937 as cited in Shafrtiz and Hyde 1997)
integrated the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol into a comprehensive theory of
administration. They believed that a single science of administration, which exceeds the
boundaries of the private and the public sector, exists. The reasoning of the science of
administration was largely borrowed from Fayol’s fourteen principles of organization.
POSDCORB, however, was seen as less influential in post-war American government.
Thereafter, Simon, Waldo and Appleby attacked the idea of POSDCORB. Simon (1946) in
his book, “Administrative Behavior,” created a distinction between theoretical and practical
science. He introduced more common principles in the literature of administration which
highlighted administrative efficiency and specialization when he wrote the article,“The
Proverbs of Administration.” (Simon 1946 as cited in Shafffritz and Hyde 1997; Stillman
1991) On the other hand, in 1945, Appleby, led a postwar attack on the concept of politics-
administration dichotomy by drafting a convincing case that “public administration was not
something apart from politics” but rather at the “center of political life.” (Stillman 1991: 123)
In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust of Public
Administration as a field of study in his book, “The Administrative State,” which hit the
“gospel of efficiency” that dominated the administrative thinking prior to World War II. That
same year, Sayre attacked public personnel administration as “the triumph over purpose.”
(Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 74) In 1949, Selznick introduced the so-called “cooptative
mechanism” where he defined “cooptation” as “the process of absorbing new elements into
the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization as a means of averting
threats to its stability or existence.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 147)
A contemporary of Goodnow was William Willoughby (1918). Willoughby stressed
the role of the trilogy covering all three branches of government but he was more known for
his budgetary reforms. He discussed the movements for budgetary reforms in the US in view
of the budget as an instrument for democracy, as an instrument for correlating legislative and
executive action, and as an instrument for securing administrative efficiency and economy.
Mary Parker Follet (1926) also made some significant contribution to the discourse of Public
Administration as one of the proponents of participatory management and the “law of
situation” which can be attributed to the concept of contingency management. She illustrated
the advantages of participatory management in her article, “The Giving of Orders. “ In the
1920s and early 1930s, Elton Mayo conducted the Hawthorne experiments on the theory of
individuals within an organization which propelled the human relations school of
management thought. Chester Barnard (1938) presented a more comprehensive theory of
organizational behavior when he wrote the functions of the executive. He argued that for the
executive to become more effective, he should maintain an equilibrium between the needs of
the employees and the organization. Maslow (1943), on the other hand, focused on the
hierarchical needs of the individual. His “theory of human motivation,” states that the human
being has five sets of needs: physiological, safety, love or affiliation, esteem and ultimately,
and self-actualization. His concepts were later explored and developed into more
comprehensive theories and principles as advocated by other researches in organizational
behavior and management, such as, Herzberg’s “motivationhygiene theory,” Mc Gregor’s
“Theory X and Y,” Argyris’ “personality versus organization and Likert’s Systems 1 to 4,
among others. (Shafritz and Hyde 1997).

Question No. 2

The matrix below suggests the indicative period of modern public administration in
the 1950s. The sub-phases include: (a) development administration; (b) new public
administration; (c) new public management and reinventing government; and PA as
governance. The discipline of public administration has been characterized as one with a
continuing “identify crisis.” To a certain extent, it was that “identity crisis” that served as
theme that led to the emergence of the New Public Administration movement in the 70s.
Rutgers (1998) argued in “Paradigm lost: Crisis as Identify of the Study of Public
Administration,” that public administration lacked an “epistemological identity.” In the
Philippines, Reyes (2003) revisited the so-called “identity crisis” of public administration
initially raised by various scholars of the discipline in his various writings. He contended that
the crisis revolved around the imperative to define a public administration rooted to the
development aspirations of the Philippines. The identity crisis, however, continues up to
today in the Philippines.

Development Administration (1950s to 1960s)

Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in 1950s and 1960s
with the third world countries as the focal point. The term “third world” may be attributed to
the French demographer and economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold
War in 1952, used the term to distinguish developing countries outside the two power blocs;
namely, the First World and the Second World respectively. (Chilcote 1984) Nef and Dwivedi
(1981) on the other hand, attributed the concept of DA to Goswami in 1955 and later
popularized by Riggs and Weidner. They coined the term “development administration” to
refer to developing countries which are largely found in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
These developing countries endeavored to make concerted efforts in order to be recognized as
“emerging nations” and to resurrect themselves after World War II. In the context of
“emerging nation,” Landau (1970) described DA as the engineerinof social change. Likewise,
according to Ilchman (1970), these countries were “concerned with increasing the capacity of
the state to produce goods and services to meet and induce changing demands.” (Ilchman
1970: 136) Gant (1979) on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressing state
functions such as public service delivery and enforcement of laws but the inducement and
management of change to pursue development aspirations. These developing countries were
in urgent need to implement fundamental reforms in their politico-administrative machinery.
Khator, however, argued that DA was built upon several critical assumptions that: (1)
development needs are the most important needs of developing countries, (2) the
development needs of developing and developed countries are inherently different, (3)
development can be administered, (4) developmental know-hows are transferable; and (5) the
political, social, and cultural context of development can be easily altered. (Khator 1998:
1778) Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his “Frontiers of Development,” identified two foci in
development administration: development of administration and the administration of
development. Most development administration scholars focused more on the latter and it
subsequently became synonymous to the administration of development in third world
countries. (Khator 1998)
Given the situations above, DA maybe considered as “management of innovation”
because it was aimed at helping countries that are undergoing reconstruction and social
transformation.

New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)

The term “New Public Administration” or New PA may have emerged from the
Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The conference was the brainchild
and inspiration of Dwight Waldo who brought together young public administrators and
scholars to discuss important issues and varying perspectives on public administration. The
conference created a hullabaloo. One of its controversies is that it had rejected the classical
theories of public administration and instead offered new principles. For instance,
Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public Administration,” adds social equity to the
classic definition of public administration. Conventional or classic public administration
sought to only answer inquiries on efficiency and effectiveness like: how can the government
offer better services with available resources (efficiency) or how can we maintain our level of
services while spending less money (economy)? In introducing the principles of New PA, he
adds the question: “Does this service enhance social equity?” (Frederickson 1971) Moreover,
the Minnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional public administration
to existing deprivation with an era of fast-paced technological advancement in the backdrop.
Frederickson argued that, disparities existed because public administration focused less on
social purposes or values of government policies and programs and more on the economy and
efficiency of execution. The value-free and neutral stance of traditional PA has alienated the
less privileged and deprived groups in the society. New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated
that public administrators should not be neutral; they should be committed to both good
management and social equity as values to be achieved. New PA then called for client-
oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures, participatory decision-making,
decentralized administration and advocate-administrators. (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and
Nigro 1989) With the above contentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change”
and the challenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept change.

New Public Management (1980s to 1990s)

 In the 1980s and early 90s, as if there was a collective assault on the organization
questioning conventional and traditional ways of doing things – both in the private and public
sectors - various strategies and modalities underscoring the imperative for fundamental
internal and external reform in the organization emerged. They ranged from being more
“client” or “customer” oriented, to the decentralization of authority to being more “business
oriented” especially for those in government.
The new public management (NPM) movement was apparently practiced by the
European countries in the late 1907s and 1980s but was essentially launched several
luminaries such as Christopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael
Barzeley (1992), among others in early 90s.
The New Public Management (NPM) movement has started in the late 1970s in UK
under the Thatcher government; however aside from England, NPM has also long been
practiced by the other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) mostly Anglo-Saxon countries like New Zealand, Australia, Germany,
the Netherlands, and Canada in the 1980s. The idea of NPM became more popular and has
stimulated academic and political interests worldwide when Christopher Hood coined the
term in his 1991 article entitled, “A Public Management for all Seasons.” (Hood 1991)
The best example of the NPM practice can be seen in New Zealand’s administrative
reforms. Their government privatized substantial public functions, redeveloped their
personnel system in order to be more performance-oriented, instituted new processes of
productivity measures, and reengineered departmental systems to reflect government’s
commitment. (Boston 1996; as cited in Denhardt 2004: 136-137) In the US, during the
administration of US President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, this concept was
reflected in their “National Performance Review” which has urged the federal government to
improve its performance. This has also led the foundation of the praxis of reengineering
government led by the Clinton-Gore administration. Parenthetically, NPM was justified by
Lynn (1996) in his article, “Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession.”
Moreover, NPM according to Pollitt is a shift into a “managerialist” movement. He
then identified five core beliefs of managerialism: (1) the main route to social progress lies in
the achievement of continuing increases in economically defined productivity; (2) such
productivity increase will mainly come from the application of ever more sophisticated
technologies; (3) the application of these technologies can only be achieved with a labor force
disciplined in accordance with the productivity ideal; (4) management is a separate and
distinct organizational function and one that plays the crucial role in planning, implementing
and measuring the necessary improvements in productivity; and (5) to perform this crucial
role, managers must be granted reasonable “room to maneuver” (i.e. right to manage”).
(Pollitt, 1990: 2-3 as cited in Denhardt 2000: 148)
The ideas of “new public management” were essentially born out of the continuing
search for solutions to economic problems in 1970s and to produce e a government that
“works better but costs less.” (Denhart 2004: 136)

PA as Governance (1990s into the 2000)

The many failed development interventions in the 50s into the 90s spurred the
introduction of other development reforms. The “governance” paradigm was introduced and
advocated by the United Nations (UN), World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB)
and other international institutions. The word “governance” suddenly “has become something
of a mantra in recent years, uttered by donors, reformers and pundits alike.” (Frechette 2000:
25) Governance entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning. Though the term
“governance” has been used to refer mostly to “government,” when correctly used,
“governance” really goes beyond government. It involves the institutionalization of a system
through which citizens, institutions, organizations, and groups in a society articulate their
interests, exercise their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective good.
(ADB 1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1) UNDP describes it as “the exercise of political,
economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It embraces all of the
methods- good and bad – that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources
and problems.” (UNDP 1997: 9)
Cariño (2000), in her reflections on the term “governance,” identified actors and
factors that pushed for governance. She acknowledges that governance is not the sole
responsibility of the government per se but the role of the market and civil society are of
equal importance too and should also be recognized. She then identified the factors or
processes that pushed for governance and some of these are: the quest for growth and
development, the environmental movement, globalization and consolidating peace. These are
practically the same values or virtues found in the UN Charter. Likewise, governance
promotes the virtues of decentralization, participation, responsiveness and accountability
among others.
From “governance”, the concept of “good governance” has emerged and became
prominent in international aid circles around 1989 or 1990. It served as a general guiding
principle for donor agencies to demand that recipient governments adhere to proper
administrative processes in the handling of development assistance and put in place effective
policy instruments towards that end. (Doornbos 2003) When there is good governance, there
is sustainable development. Kofi Annan, in his inaugural speech in the 1st International
Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations, New York,
in July 28-30, 1997 affirms this when he said that:
“Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible. That is the lesson of
all our efforts and experiences, from Africa to Asia to Latin America. Without good
governance – without the rule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, and
responsive regulation -- no amount of funding, no amount of charity will set us on the path to
prosperity…We are fully engaged in efforts to improve governance around the world…good
governance is indispensable for building peaceful, prosperous and democratic societies.”
(Annan 1997)
Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single most important factor
in eradicating poverty and promoting development.” (Annan 1997)
An ADB document (2005) affirmed that good governance is synonymous with sound
development management. They then identified some key principles of development which
may be considered as elements of good governance. These are: accountability, participation,
predictability, and transparency. The table below shows the basic elements of good
governance and its key dimensions.

Key Dimensions and Specific Areas of Actions

Basic Elements of Good Governance Key Dimensions Specific Areas of Action
1. Accountability means making Establishing criteria to • Public Sector
public officials answerable for measure performance of Management
government behavior and responsive public officials • Public Enterprise
to the entity from which they derive Institutionalizing mechanisms Management
authority to ensure that standards are • Public Financial
met. Management
• Civil Service Reform
2. Participation refers to enhancing Undertaking development for • Participation of
people’s access to and influence on and by the people beneficiaries and affected
public policy processes groups
• Interface between
 government and the private
sector
• Decentralization of public
and service delivery
functions (empowerment of
Local Governments)
• Cooperation with Non-
Government Organizations
3. Predictability refers to the existence Establishing and sustaining • Law and Development
of laws, regulations and policies to appropriate legal and • Legal Frameworks for
regulate society and the fair and institutional arrangements Private Sector
consistent application of these Observing and upholding the Development
rule of law
Maintaining consistency of
public policies
4. Transparency refers to the Ensuring access to accurate • Disclosure of Information
availability of Information to the and timely information about
general public and clear government the economy and government
rules, regulations, and decisions policies
Source: ADB, 2005

Question No. 3
Public administration in itself has been considered as sub-field of political science.
The following theories have been considered as traditional sub-fields of political science:

Political Theory. Political theory is a study and analysis of political ideas of significant
political thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
Locke, Rousseau, and many other political thinkers.
International Relations and Politics. As a subfield of political science, international
relations have zeroed in on the relations between and among nation states and how such
relations are defined.
Comparative Politics. Comparative politics is a study of contemporary politics and political
trends in selected countries and regions around the world and then comparing and critically
analyzing the variety of ways that these countries have chosen to shape their political
institutions and processes, assess the costs and benefits of their choices and address common
problems, including the challenges of globalization, with an eye toward identifying processes,
practices, and policies which might be “exportable” ideas for countries to borrow from one
another.
Public Administration. Public Administration as a discipline emerged out of a broader
discipline which is Political Science. Reyes (1993: 22) considers it as a “child of political
science” that is mature enough to be treated separately or independently of its mother.”
Organization and Management. It basically focuses on sub-areas like organization theory
and practice, dynamics of organization, decision-making in administration, leadership and
other sub-areas that is particularly discusses the theories, processes and techniques involved
in the organization and management of the national government and its agencies.
Public Personnel Administration. Public administration consists of administrative processes
that involves people, its most important element, therefore public personnel administration is
an equally important field.
Public Fiscal Administration. This subfield of public administration covers a wide range of issues
and topics affecting government operations like taxation, public expenditures and borrowing, resource
allocation, revenue administration, auditing and intergovernmental relations.
Local Government Administration. In studying local government administration, the
concepts of decentralization are taken into account.

Question No. 4
According to Carinos (1993) label, Development Administration is a product of the
1980s. Development Administration is similar to the New Public Administration in its
emphasis on the goals of social justice, equity and the centrality of the human person. Akin to
Development Administration in its focus on the problems of the Third World rather than the
US. Development Public Administration advocates do not choose between equity and growth
but view continued productivity as the base upon which basic needs would provide for
everyone in the society and benefits would be distributed in a more equitable way.
Like New Public Administration, Development Public Administration locate public
agencies in the context of their own societies. Regards their activities as complemented by, it
not actually incomplete or inadequate without the empowerment of the people as participants
in the process of administration.
 In contrast to Development Administration and New Public Administration, Development
Public Administration locates its bureaucracy not only within its own society but also in the
context of a global system which impinges on and constrains the policies of the nation.
Like Traditional Public Administration, Development Public Administration is not
against bureaucracy as an organization; one of its main programs involves not the toppling of
large-scale hierarchical structures but of their modification through bureaucratic
reorientation; change not necessarily of structures but of the people within.
While not rejecting project management, Development Public Administrations concern is
the infusion of new life into regular long-term programs by organizations which acknowledge
and learn from their mistakes.
Search for smaller, possibly ad hoc organizations; tries out new approaches, coordination
with the activities of similar agencies; involves those outside the organizations in planning,
implementation and evaluation. Concern for maintenance and equity
Emphasizes decentralization; community development (CD) is resurgent, but when
sponsored by an extra-governmental organization, must be linked to higher levels, often
available only thru the government machinery.
In the Philippines, the term “development administration” was used to suggest that it may
be an appropriate framework to examine the State’s experience as it tries to rebuild its
institutions within a democratic framework, as it struggles to new economic, political and
social challenges, and as it adapts to the trends and demands of globalization. Additionally,
DA principles have been among the major themes that ran through the various lectures and
writings of Raul De Guzman, who together with OD Corpuz (1986) initially addressed the
question: “Is there a Philippine Pa?” Since the idea was to steer developing countries for
economic development and social progress, the term DA became closely associated to foreign
aid and western models of development. These Western countries provide grants and aids to
developing countries for nation-building, economic development, institutional strengthening,
and people participation in development. As to administrative reform, which is one of the
core values of DA, De Guzman (1986) described and analyzed the structural and behavioral
characteristics of the Philippine public bureaucracy and argued that the “implementation of
administrative reform should have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of the
bureaucracy and reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy.” (De Guzman 1986 as
cited in Brillantes 1994: 8) Development administration has always been one of the central
features of the various long and medium term Philippine Development Plans since the
seventies. The paradigm for bureaucratic reform continues to evolve in various intellectual
and practical debates but government continues its work amidst all these. Until recently, all
Philippine development plans since the seventies had a specific chapter devoted solely to
development administration.

Now the question is: Is New PA relevant?

The same question was asked by Pilar (1993) in his article “Relevance of New PA in
Philippine Public Administration. He argued that New PA is relevant while there is no
indigenous model of public administration. “The relevance of New PA maybe regarded from
in terms of their compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the
convergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals, purposes, and
aspirations of the country.” (Pilar 1993: 145) The principle of New PA is compatible with the
environment of the Philippine PA, although it was conceived during the time that the US was
in chaotic and unpredictable environment amidst prosperity. Such situation is different in the
Philippines considering that not only it grappled with advancement but it struggled to pull
itself out of poverty which is a major concern of the government up to this date. New PA
created the need to stimulate change: meeting the needs of the society through the
government’s development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and justice. It
must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised by New PA are also embedded in
our second order question, “for whom is PA?” It is indeed critical to define the ultimate
targets and partners of public administration structures, institutions and processes. In other
words, who is the “public” in public administration?

Question No. 5
The ideas of “reinventing government” were essentially born out of the continuing
search for solutions to economic problems in 1970s and to produce a government that “works
better but costs less.” (Denhart 2004: 136) The idea of “reinventing government” was
advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992. Their concept of NPM was sparked by the use of
business model prescriptions for government i.e. using private sector innovation, resources,
and organizational ideas to improve the public sector. Reinventing Government provided ten
principles through which public entrepreneurs might bring about massive governmental
reform principles that has remained at the core of the new public management. These are the
following:
1. Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing
 2. Community-owned government: empowering rather than serving
3. Competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery
4. Mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations
5. Results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not inputs
6. Customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer not their
bureaucracy
7. Enterprising government rather than spending
8. Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure
9. Decentralized government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork
10. Market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market (Osborne and
Gaebler 1992: 35-282)
Among the criticisms of this model, however, was its emphasis on people as
"customers" or “clients” rather than "citizens" and that customers were placed as “end-
product” users of government rather than as “means” of the policy making process. Denhardt
and Denhardt (2003) likewise offer a synthesis of the ideas that are opposed to NPM
presented by Osborne and Gaebler. Their model for governance expands the traditional role
of the public administrator as a lone arbiter of public interest rather, “the public administrator
is seen as a key actor within the larger system of governance.” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003:
81) Following the Reinventing Government, they divided their argument into seven
principles, namely, (1) serve citizens, not customers (2) seek the public interest, (3) value
citizenship over entrepreneurship, (4) think strategically, act democratically , (5) recognize
that accountability is not simple, (6) serve rather than steer, and (6) value people, not just
productivity. Another similar movement was “reengineering organizations.” This term was
coined by Michael Hammer (1990) in an article published by the Harvard Business Review.
Reengineering offers an approach for improving performance, effectiveness, and efficiency of
organizations regardless of the sector in which they operate. According to Hammer and
Champy (1993), “reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of
business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of
performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.” (Hammer and Champy 1993 as cited
in Halachmi 1995: 330). The tenets of reengineering include the following:
• Searching for radical improvement in business processes enabled by exploiting the
powers of information technology.
• Breaking away from the antiquated ways and processes of business operations and
starting with a clean slate.
 • Viewing (and reviewing) the fundamental business processes from cross-functional
perspective to ensure that each step in the process adds value.
• Questioning whether the process is necessary and what it is intended to achieve,
given
the over-all mission of the organization.
• Systematic searching for radical changes for the purpose of effecting major
improvements
or breakthroughs in business processes when an incremental approach will not work
anymore.
• Reducing, if not eliminating, paper documentation that enters the process at different
stages, with an attempt to capture the data once, at the source.
• Focusing on and developing around processes and outcomes, not tasks or
organizational
functions.
• Focusing on the customer or client, in a results-oriented & team-based
approach.(Halachmi 1995: 331)
Re-engineering or the so called business process reengineering (BPR) was essentially
an innovation that sought to refurbish the operation of an organization’s operation,
management system and structure, to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive
ability and ultimately improve service delivery. Re-engineering seems to be an effective way
to upgrade the services of our governmental agencies, however, it continues to hurdle
obstacles and challenges in applying the formula such as fiscal constraints and the traditional
thinking of political leaders.

Question No. 6
The heart of the debates with regard to the meaning, scope, and focus of the field of
Public Administration is, Is there a Philippine public administration? Indeed, that question
had been asked 20 years ago, and answers have been provided us by eminent scholars of
Public Administration such as Raul de Guzman and Onofre Corpuz. After two decades, we
think it is worthwhile to revisit the issue and ask our colleagues once again to answer the
question, “Is there a Philippine Public Administration?” This time around, we take the
question a little further and ask an equally important second question, “If there is a Philippine
Public Administration, then for whom does Philippine Public Administration exist?”
 There is a Philippine Public Administration as far as there is an American, French and
Thai public administration. There is a Philippine public administration as far as there are
institutions of public administration addressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a
Philippine public administration as far as it being a field of study is concerned. There is a
Philippine public administration considering the massive role of the bureaucracy in
Philippine public administration. There is a Philippine public administration when we
consider its major institutions in education, politics and government.
Yes, we have basic public administration structures and processes. We have an
executive branch with the bureaucracy at its core. We have a Philippine legislature. We have a
Philippine judiciary. We have Philippine electoral processes and procedures. We have
Philippine sub-national institutions and local governments, together with decentralization
processes and procedures. It is within this context that we argue that indeed, we have a
Philippine public administration characterized by the presence of administrative structures
and processes operating within a unique Philippine context.
Another question is that, “for whom is public administration.” One has to make an
evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whether the discipline of Philippine public
administration has indeed responded - or failed to respond - to the unique calls and demands
of the times. This will enable us to answer the question posed at the outset, “for whom is
public administration?” This is a question that ultimately must be addressed not only by those
teaching public administration but also by those studying public administration as well.