Public Administration or Public Policy and Administration (an academic discipline) is

the implementation of public policy, administration of government establishment (public

governance), management of non-profit establishment (nonprofit governance), and also a
subfield of political science taught in public policy schools that studies this implementation and
prepares people, especially civil servants in administrative positions for working in the public
sector, voluntary sector,[1] some industries in the private sector dealing with government
relations, regulatory affairs, legislative assistance, corporate social
responsibility (CSR), environmental, social, governance (ESG), public procurement (PP), public-
private partnerships (P3), and business-to-government marketing/sales (B2G) as well as those
working at think tanks, non-profit organizations, consulting firms, trade associations, or in other
positions that uses similar skills found in public administration.
Some of the various definitions that have been offered for the term are "the management of
public programs";[2] the "translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day";[3] and
"the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies themselves, the various
inputs that have produced them, and the inputs necessary to produce alternative
policies."[4] The word public administration is the combination of two words—public and
administration. In every sphere of social, economic and political life there is administration
which means that for the proper functioning of the organization or institution it must be
properly ruled or managed and from this concept emerges the idea of administration.
In the United States in the 1880s, civil servants and academics like Woodrow Wilson worked to
reform the civil service system and bring public administration into the realm of science[6].
However, "until the mid-twentieth century, when German sociologist Max Weber's theory of
bureaucracy prevailed," he said, "there was no great interest in the theory of public
administration. The field is multidisciplinary in character, and one of the various proposals for
sub-fields of public administration sets out six pillars, including human resources, organizational
theory, policy analysis, statistics, budgeting, and ethics.[5]
Public administration is a segment of the larger field of administration. It is simply regarded as
bureaucracy, heedless to the fact that bureaucracy as a particular organizational form is not
only found in the government, but also in private and third sector organizations.
(Dhameja,2003, p. 2). Public Administration is a discipline which is concerned with the
organization and the formulation and implementation of public policies for the welfare of the
people. It functions in a political setting in order to accomplish the goals and objectives, which
are formulated by the political decision-makers. The focus of public administration, thus, is on
public bureaucracy. The subject got its major boost after the Minnowbrook conference held at
Syracuse university in the year 1968, presided over by Dwight Waldo. It was this time when the
concept of New Public Administration emerged.
Thus, public administration as a course of government action in relation to public policy as an
outline of what government wants to do plays an important role in our society. It can be
understood as the course of action or inaction by the government with regard to a particular
issue or set of issues. It can be associated with formally approved policy goals and means, as
well as the regulations and practices of agencies that implement the programs.The relationship
between what the government (public administration) wants to accomplish and what actually
occurs is carried by public policy. Therefore, the ultimate goal of all public policies is to achieve
particular objectives that the government has in mind. The nation's citizens' welfare is a major
consideration in the formulation and implementation of these programs. Because of this, the
public's opinion, for one, exerts considerable pressure on the course of government (public
administration) policies.
Definitions[edit]
Administrators tend to work with both paper documents and computer files: "There has been a
significant shift from paper to electronic records during the past two decades. Although
government institutions continue to print and maintain paper documents as 'official records,'
the vast majority of records are now created and stored in electronic format." [6] (pictured here
is Stephen C. Dunn, Deputy Comptroller for the US Navy)
Public administration is a field in which leaders serve communities in order to advance the
common good and achieve constructive change. Professionals in public administration are
trained to manage at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) as well as nonprofit
organizations.[7]
In 1947, Paul H. Appleby defined public administration as the "public leadership of public affairs
directly responsible for executive action". In a democracy, it has to do with such leadership and
executive action in terms that respect and contribute to the dignity, worth, and potentials of
the citizen.[8] One year later, Gordon Clapp, then Chairman of the Tennessee Valley
Authority defined public administration "as a public instrument whereby democratic society
may be more completely realized." This implies that it must "relate itself to concepts of justice,
liberty, and fuller economic opportunity for human beings" and is thus "concerned with
"people, with ideas, and with things".[9] According to James D. Carroll & Alfred M. Zuck, the
publication by "Woodrow Wilson of his essay, "The Study of Administration" in 1887 is
generally regarded as the beginning of public administration as a specific field of study".[10]
Drawing on the democracy theme and discarding the link to the executive branch, Patricia M.
Shields asserts that public administration "deals with the stewardship and implementation of
the products of a living democracy".[11] The key term "product" refers to "those items that are
constructed or produced" such as prisons, roads, laws, schools, and security. "As implementors,
public managers engage these products." They participate in the doing and making of the
"living" democracy. A living democracy is "an environment that is changing, organic", imperfect,
inconsistent and teaming with values. "Stewardship is emphasized because public
administration is concerned "with accountability and effective use of scarce resources and
ultimately making the connection between the doing, the making and democratic values".[12]

Throughout history, both small and large nations have elevated certain types of nonelected
workers to positions of relative power within the governmental structure. Collectively, these
essential workers are called the bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is an administrative group of
nonelected officials charged with carrying out functions connected to a series of policies and
programs. In the United States, the bureaucracy began as a very small collection of individuals.
Over time, however, it grew to be a major force in political affairs. Indeed, it grew so large that
politicians in modern times have ridiculed it to great political advantage. However, the
country’s many bureaucrats or civil servants, the individuals who work in the bureaucracy, fill
necessary and even instrumental roles in every area of government: from high-level positions in
foreign affairs and intelligence collection agencies to clerks and staff in the smallest regulatory
agencies. They are hired, or sometimes appointed, for their expertise in carrying out the
functions and programs of the government.

WHAT DOES A BUREAUCRACY DO?

Modern society relies on the effective functioning of government to provide public goods,
enhance quality of life, and stimulate economic growth. The activities by which government
achieves these functions include—but are not limited to—taxation, homeland security,
immigration, foreign affairs, and education. The more society grows and the need for
government services expands, the more challenging bureaucratic management and public
administration becomes. Public administration is both the implementation of public policy in
government bureaucracies and the academic study that prepares civil servants for work in
those organizations.

The classic version of a bureaucracy is hierarchical and can be described by an organizational

chart that outlines the separation of tasks and worker specialization while also establishing a
clear unity of command by assigning each employee to only one boss. Moreover, the classic
bureaucracy employs a division of labor under which work is separated into smaller tasks
assigned to different people or groups. Given this definition, bureaucracy is not unique to
government but is also found in the private and nonprofit sectors. That is, almost all
organizations are bureaucratic regardless of their scope and size; although public and private
organizations differ in some important ways. For example, while private organizations are
responsible to a superior authority such as an owner, board of directors, or shareholders,
federal governmental organizations answer equally to the president, Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public. The underlying goals of private and public organizations also differ. While
private organizations seek to survive by controlling costs, increasing market share, and realizing
a profit, public organizations find it more difficult to measure the elusive goal of operating with
efficiency and effectiveness.

Bureaucracy may seem like a modern invention, but bureaucrats have served in governments
for nearly as long as governments have existed. Archaeologists and historians point to the
sometimes elaborate bureaucratic systems of the ancient world, from the Egyptian scribes who
recorded inventories to the biblical tax collectors who kept the wheels of government well
greased.1 In Europe, government bureaucracy and its study emerged before democracies did. In
contrast, in the United States, a democracy and the Constitution came first, followed by the
development of national governmental organizations as needed, and then finally the study of
U.S. government bureaucracies and public administration emerged.2

In fact, the long pedigree of bureaucracy is an enduring testament to the necessity of

administrative organization. More recently, modern bureaucratic management emerged in the
eighteenth century from Scottish economist Adam Smith’s support for the efficiency of the
division of labor and from Welsh reformer Robert Owen’s belief that employees are vital
instruments in the functioning of an organization. However, it was not until the mid-1800s that
the German scholar Lorenz von Stein argued for public administration as both a theory and a
practice since its knowledge is generated and evaluated through the process of gathering
evidence. For example, a public administration scholar might gather data to see whether the
timing of tax collection during a particular season might lead to higher compliance or returns.
Credited with being the father of the science of public administration, von Stein opened the
path of administrative enlightenment for other scholars in industrialized nations.

THE ORIGINS OF THE U.S. BUREAUCRACY

In the early U.S. republic, the bureaucracy was quite small. This is understandable since the
American Revolution was largely a revolt against executive power and the British imperial
administrative order. Nevertheless, while neither the word “bureaucracy” nor its synonyms
appear in the text of the Constitution, the document does establish a few broad channels
through which the emerging government could develop the necessary bureaucratic
administration.

For example, Article II, Section 2, provides the president the power to appoint officers and
department heads. In the following section, the president is further empowered to see that the
laws are “faithfully executed.” More specifically, Article I, Section 8, empowers Congress to
establish a post office, build roads, regulate commerce, coin money, and regulate the value of
money. Granting the president and Congress such responsibilities appears to anticipate a
bureaucracy of some size. Yet the design of the bureaucracy is not described, and it does not
occupy its own section of the Constitution as bureaucracy often does in other countries’
governing documents; the design and form were left to be established in practice.

Under President George Washington, the bureaucracy remained small enough to accomplish
only the necessary tasks at hand.3 Washington’s tenure saw the creation of the Department of
State to oversee international issues, the Department of the Treasury to control coinage, and
the Department of War to administer the armed forces. The employees within these three
departments, in addition to the growing postal service, constituted the major portion of the
federal bureaucracy for the first three decades of the republic (Figure 15.2). Two developments,
however, contributed to the growth of the bureaucracy well beyond these humble beginnings.

History
Early systems

Public administration has ancient origins. In antiquity the Egyptians and Greeks organized public
affairs by office, and the principal officeholders were regarded as being principally responsible
for administering justice, maintaining law and order, and providing plenty.
The Romans developed a more sophisticated system under their empire, creating distinct
administrative hierarchies for justice, military affairs, finance and taxation, foreign affairs, and
internal affairs, each with its own principal officers of state. An elaborate administrative
structure, later imitated by the Roman Catholic Church, covered the entire empire, with
a hierarchy of officers reporting back through their superiors to the emperor. This sophisticated
structure disappeared after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, but many
of its practices continued in the Byzantine Empire in the east, where civil service rule was
reflected in the pejorative use of the word Byzantinism.

Early European administrative structures developed from the royal households of

the medieval period. Until the end of the 12th century official duties within the royal
households were ill-defined, frequently with multiple holders of the same post. Exceptions
were the better-defined positions of butler (responsible for the provision of wine), steward
(responsible for feasting arrangements), chamberlain (often charged with receiving and paying
out money kept in the royal sleeping chamber), and chancellor (usually a priest with
responsibilities for writing and applying the seal in the monarch’s name). With the 13th century
a separation began between the purely domestic functions of the royal household and the
functions connected with governing the state. The older household posts tended to disappear,
become sinecures, or decline in importance. The office of chancellor, which had always been
concerned with matters of state, survived to become the most important link between the old
court offices and modern ministries, and the development of the modern treasury or finance
ministry can be traced back to the chamberlain’s office in the royal household.

From the middle of the 13th century three institutions began to emerge as the major bodies for
handling affairs of state: the high court (evolving primarily from the chancellery), the
exchequer, and the collegial royal council. In England and France, however, it was not until the
early 14th century that such bodies emerged. In Brandenburg, which was governed by an
elector (a prince with a right to elect the Holy Roman emperor) and which later formed the
basis of the Prussian state, they became distinct entities only at the beginning of the 17th
century.

Apart from justice and treasury departments, which originated in old court offices, modern
ministerial structures in Europe developed out of the royal councils, which were powerful
bodies of nobles appointed by the monarch. From the division of labour within these bodies the
monarchs’ secretaries, initially given low status within a council, emerged as perhaps the first
professional civil servants in Europe in the modern sense. The proximity of the secretaries to
the monarch gave them more knowledge of royal intentions, and their relative permanence
gave them greater expertise in particular matters of state than could be found among the
more transient nobles on the council. They were also assisted by staffs. The secretaries grew in
importance in the 15th and 16th centuries as they became more or less full members of the
council.

The distribution of functions among secretaries was initially based upon geography. In England
this geographical allocation—with, for example, a secretary of the North and a secretary of the
South—persisted until 1782, when the offices of home and foreign secretary were created. In
France a more complex allocation of territorial responsibilities among secretaries of state had
begun to give way to functional responsibilities by the end of the ancien régime in 1789.

The civil service in China was undoubtedly the longest lasting in history; it was first organized,
along with a centralized administration, during the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) and
improved under the Tang (618–907) and Sung (960–1279). The administration was organized so
well that the pattern stood until 1912. During the Sung dynasty there developed the full use of
civil service examinations. Candidates were subjected to successive elimination through written
tests on three levels, more than a hundred persons beginning the ordeal for each one who
emerged successful. Although there was strong emphasis on the Chinese Classics (because
knowledge of the Classics was thought to form the virtues of a good citizen), there was also an
effort to devise objective and meaningful tests for practical qualities, and there were always
long contentions over subject matter and testing methods. To preserve the anonymity of the
candidate and to ensure fairness in grading, examination papers were copied by clerks,
examinees were identified by number only, and three examiners read each paper. Higher
officials were privileged to nominate junior relatives for admission to the bureaucracy, but the
great stress on examination grades in promotion, the use of annual merit ratings, and the
practice of recruiting many lower officials from the ranks of the clerical service ensured a
considerable freedom of opportunity.
Modern developments

Prussia

The foundations of modern public administration in Europe were laid in Prussia in the late 17th
and 18th centuries. The electors of Brandenburg (who from 1701 were the kings of Prussia)
considered a rigidly centralized government a means of ensuring stability and furthering
dynastic objectives. Their principal effort was devoted in the first instance to the suppression of
the autonomy of the cities and to the elimination of the feudal privileges of the aristocracy. Civil
servants were therefore appointed by the central government to administer the provinces,
where the management of crown lands and the organization of the military system were
combined in a Kriegs-und-Domänen-kammer (“Office of War and Crown Lands”). Subordinate
to these offices were the Steuerräte (“tax councillors”), who controlled the administration of
the municipalities and communes. These officials were all appointed by the central government
and were responsible to it. At the apex of the new machinery of government was the sovereign.

This centralized system was strengthened by creating a special corps of civil servants. In the
beginning these civil servants—in a real sense servants of the crown—were sent out from Berlin
to deal with such purely military matters as recruiting, billeting, and victualing the troops, but in
the course of time they extended their supervision to civil matters as well. By 1713 there were
clearly recognizable administrative units dealing in civil affairs and staffed by crown civil
servants.

Special ordinances in 1722 and 1748 regulated recruitment to the civil service. Senior officials
were required to propose to the king the names of candidates suitable for appointment to the
higher posts, while the adjutant general proposed noncommissioned officers suitable for
subordinate administrative posts. Further steps were taken throughout the 18th century to
regularize the system of recruitment, promotion, and internal organization. All of these matters
were brought together in a single General Code promulgated in 1794. The merit system of
appointment covered all types of posts, and the general principle laid down was that “special
laws and instructions determine the appointing authority to different civil service rank, their
qualifications, and the preliminary examinations required from different branches and different
ranks.” Entry to the higher civil service required a university degree in cameralistics, which,
though strictly speaking the science of public finance, included also the study of administrative
law, police administration, estate management, and agricultural economics. After the degree
course, candidates for the higher civil service spent a further period of supervised practical
training in various branches of the administration, at the end of which they underwent a further
oral and written examination. The basic principles of modern civil services are to be found in
this General Code.
France
A fundamental change in the status of the civil servant came about as a result of the
French Revolution of 1789. The fall of the ancien régime and the creation of a republic meant
that the civil servant was seen as the servant no longer of the king but rather of the state—even
though rule by a king or emperor was soon brought back and continued in France for nearly
another century. The civil servant became an instrument of public power, not the agent of a
person. This depersonalization of the state encouraged a rapid growth in the field of public law
concerned with the organization, duties, and rights of “the public power,” of which civil
servants were the principal component. To the ordered structure of the
Prussian bureaucracy there began to be added the logical development of administrative law.

This bureaucratization was greatly fostered by Napoleon I, who built up a new civil service
marked not only by some of the features of military organization but also by the principles of
rationality, logic, and universality that were the inheritance of the Enlightenment. There was a
clear chain of command and a firmly established hierarchy of officials, with duties clearly
apportioned between authorities. Authority was depersonalized and went to the office and not
the official—although Napoleon insisted that each official should be responsible for action
taken in the name of his office. France was divided into new territorial units: départements,
arrondissements, and communes. In each of these, state civil servants had a general
responsibility for maintaining public order, health, and morality. They were all linked in a chain
to the national Ministry of the Interior. A special school, the École Polytechnique, was set up to
provide the state with technical specialists in both the military and the civil fields—particularly
in general administration. In the field of general administration, the Conseil d’État (“Council of
State”), descended from the old Conseil du Roi (“Council of the King”), imposed
an intellectual as well as a judicial authority over the rest of the civil service; as the first major
European administrative court, it became the creator of a new type of administrative
jurisprudence. The prestige of the new French administrative organization and the logical
arrangement of its internal structure prompted many other European countries to copy its
principal features. And the expansion of the French Empire spread many of its features across
the world.

In France under the Third Republic (1870–1940) there developed, however, considerable
political interference in some branches of the civil service; and much of its vitality was
diminished as its bureaucratic practices tended to become unwieldy and its personnel lethargic.
Not until 1946 was the system reformed—which involved overhauling the administrative
structure of the central government, centralizing personnel selection, creating a special ministry
for civil service affairs, and setting up a special school, the École National d’Administration, for
the training of senior civil servants. This school in particular has attracted worldwide attention
for its ability to instill in its graduates both specialist and generalist skills.

The British Empire

The first attempts by Great Britain to create efficient administrative machinery arose from its
commitment to govern India and to avoid in that country the periodic scandals that marked
some of the rule of the East India Company. Robert Clive, appointed governor of Bengal for the
second time in 1764, introduced a code of practice that prohibited servants of the company
from trading on their own account or accepting gifts from native traders. Subsequent governors
strengthened the ban, compensating for the loss of benefits by substantially increasing salaries,
introducing promotion by seniority, and reorganizing the higher echelons of administration.
Recruitment was carried on by the company in London, and after 1813 entrants to the civil
service had to study the history, language, and laws of India for a period of four terms at
Haileybury College, England, and to obtain a certificate of good conduct before taking up their
posts. As a result of advocacy by Thomas Macaulay, secretary to the board of control,
examination rather than patronage was adopted as a recruitment method. New rules from
1833 stipulated that four candidates had to be nominated for each vacancy and that they were
to compete with one another in “an examination in such branches of knowledge and by such
examinations as the Board of the Company shall direct.”

There was further criticism of the way India was run, however, and in 1853 another legislative
reform of the administration was proposed. The experience of the Indian Civil Service
influenced the foundation of the modern civil service in the United Kingdom. A report was
published in 1854 on the organization of the Permanent Civil Service in Britain. Its principal
author, Sir Charles Trevelyan, had acquired a reputation for searching out corruption in the
Indian Civil Service during 14 years of service there. The report of 1854 recommended the
abolition of patronage and recruitment by open competitive examination. It further
recommended (1) the establishment of an autonomous semijudicial body of civil service
commissioners to ensure the proper administration of recruitment to official posts, (2) the
division of the work of the civil service into intellectual and routine work, the two sets of offices
to have separate forms of recruitment, and (3) the selection of higher civil servants more
decidedly on the basis of general intellectual attainment than specialized knowledge. The Civil
Service Commission was established in 1855, and during the next 30 years patronage was
gradually eliminated. The two original classes were increased to four, and some specialized
branches were amalgamated to become the Scientific Civil Service. The new civil service
managed to attract to its senior levels highly capable, discreet, and self-effacing university
graduates. Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge became—and remain to the present—
especially prominent in the ranks of senior civil servants in Britain.
The United States

In the United States patronage remained the norm for considerably longer than in Britain. From
the early days of the federation two principles were firmly held. First, there was antipathy to
the notion of a cadre of permanent civil servants; President Jackson clearly dismissed this
notion of a highly professional caste when he said, in 1829, that “the duties of all public officers
are . . . so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their
performance.” As a consequence, he said, “I can not but believe that more is lost by the long
continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience. No one man has
any more intrinsic right to official station than another.” The second principle—that as far as
possible public office should be elective—followed more or less automatically. But because this
principle could not be practically applied to the subordinate levels of administration, there
developed the “spoils system,” in which public office became a perquisite of political victory,
being widely used to reward political support. This system was susceptible to
persistent, blatant, and ultimately unacceptable degrees of inefficiency, corruption, and
partisanship. These particular faults were strongly felt after the Civil War (1861–65), during the
period of rapid economic and social development. Under considerable pressure, the federal
government accepted a restricted principle of entry by competitive open examination, and in
1883 the U.S. Civil Service Commission was established to control entry to office in the federal
service. The work of the commission was mainly restricted to the lower grades of employment,
and it was not until the first 20 years of the 20th century that the merit system of recruitment
was expanded to cover half the posts in the federal service. After that period the commission’s
control gradually increased, mainly over the lower, middle, and managerial offices in the federal
service. After 1978 the functions of the commission were divided between the Office of
Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Principal policy-making posts
remain outside the jurisdiction of these two bodies, being filled instead by presidential
nomination.

The development of civil service in U.S. local government varied among states, counties, and
cities. The adoption of a merit system can usually be dated from the early 20th century, during
the reform period of the muckrakers. In some states the merit system became well established,
with a central personnel office that included a civil service commission or board similar to the
federal model. At the other extreme there was simply a central personnel office headed by a
single personnel director with no advisory board. At the municipal level, by the mid-20th
century, most large cities in the United States had developed some sort of merit system; in
smaller cities, however, merit systems were correspondingly less common. In the counties, the
majority of which were rural and had relatively few public employees, formally established
merit systems were rare.
The Soviet Union
In Russia the Revolution of 1917 swept away the tsarist civil service. The Communist Party at
first held that a strong administrative organization was bound to damage the revolution by
dampening spontaneity and other revolutionary virtues. But it soon became clear that a regime
dedicated to social engineering, economic planning, and world revolution needed trained
administrators. The party fell back, albeit reluctantly, upon the expertise of the more reliable
tsarist civil servants. It did, however, surround the new civil service with elaborate controls in
an attempt to ensure that its members remained loyal to party directives.

As the Communist Party itself became bureaucratized and as the more enthusiastic
revolutionary leaders were eliminated, special industrial academies were set up for party
members who had shown administrative talent. With the First Five-Year Plan (1928–32) the
status of civil servants was improved, and their conditions of service were made less rigid, even
though the party never relaxed its tight system of control over all branches of the state
apparatus. In 1935 the State Commission on the Civil Service was created and attached to the
Commissariat of Finance with responsibility for ensuring general control of personnel practice.
This commission laid down formal patterns of administrative structure, reformed
existing bureaucratic practices, fixed levels of staffing, standardized systems of job
classification, and eliminated unnecessary functions and staff. The inspectorate of the Ministry
of Finance ensured that the commission’s general policies were carried out in the ministries.
The commission itself remained under the close supervision of the Council of People’s
Commissars to ensure that it complied with party directives, and the commission’s members
were appointed directly by the council.

The Soviet commission, unlike those in such countries as Great Britain and the United States,
was given no jurisdiction over the recruitment of civil servants, which remained the function of
the ministries and agencies. The highest administrative and technical staff members were
recruited by each ministry. Each branch of industry and administration had its own training
schools, from which it selected qualified students with satisfactory records. On appointment,
the student was bonded for a minimum of three years and liable to criminal proceedings if he
refused or subsequently relinquished his assignment. At the lower levels of administration,
recruitment and job placement were the responsibility of the Commissariat of Labour Reserves.

The Communist Party made determined attempts to recruit higher civil servants as party
members. These drives, which followed periodically after the 1930s, went a long way toward
transforming the party itself into an administrative and managerial elite and uniting the party
and the state administration. The highest levels of the civil service came to constitute an
influential apparatus and power centre in their own right. The internal structure of the civil
service, moreover, had been fashioned along classic French and German lines; and titles, ranks,
insignia, and uniforms officially appeared in various parts of the public services.

China

The People’s Republic of China also illustrated the conflict between revolutionary suspicion
of bureaucracy and the need to construct strong administrative machinery in order to attain
revolutionary goals. China’s long tradition of bureaucracy remained important even after the
Communist Party came to power in 1949. Within a decade the weight of the administration had
already led, according to party dogma, to a gap between the elite and the masses and also to
excessive stratification among the ruling bureaucrats, or cadres, themselves. There was not
only a distinction between “old cadres” and “new cadres,” depending on nothing more
substantial than the date of an official’s entry into the revolutionary movement, but also a
complex system of job evaluation that divided the civil service into 24 grades, each with its own
rank, salary scales, and distinctions. The number of ratings represented very considerable
differences of power, prestige, and prerogatives and produced psychological barriers between
the highest and lowest grades at least as great and as conspicuous as between the cadres and
the masses. These distinctions and discrepancies were widely attacked during the Cultural
Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s, but they remained deeply ingrained in the administrative
structure.
Japan

Until the 17th century, Japan under the shogunate was administered by a military
establishment made up of vassals and enfeoffed nobles. After the 1630s a civil bureaucracy
developed and began to assume a more important role than the military. Appointment within
the bureaucracy was based upon family rank, and officials were loyal primarily to the feudal
lord. It was not until after Matthew C. Perry sailed four U.S. warships into Uraga Harbour in
1853, thus forcibly ending more than two centuries of Japan’s isolation from the rest of the
world, that the Japanese bureaucracy moved away from feudal rank as the basis of
appointments, establishing in its place loyalty to the emperor rather than to feudal lords. Merit
appointments were made on a modest scale immediately after Japan was opened to the West,
yet it was not until the 1880s, during the Meiji Restoration, that a modern civil service was
created on the basis of job security, career paths, and entry by open competition. Tokyo
University law graduates tended to dominate this new civil service. Personal allegiance to the
emperor was reflected in the status of Japanese civil servants as “Emperor’s Officials.”

After World War II the Allied occupation authorities directed the passage of a Japanese
law guaranteeing that all public officials should be servants of the people rather than of the
emperor. The National Public Service Law of 1947 set up an independent National Personnel
Authority to administer recruitment, promotion, conditions of employment, standards of
performance, and job classification for the new civil service. Technically the emperor himself
became a civil servant, and detailed regulations brought within the scope of the new law all civil
servants from labourers to the prime minister. Civil servants were classified into two groups,
the regular service and a special service. Civil servants in the former category entered the
service by competitive examination on a standard contract with tenure. The special service
included elected officials and political appointees and covered such officials as members of the
Diet (legislature), judges, members of the audit boards, and ambassadors.

Although in theory the sovereign people had an inalienable right to choose and dismiss all
public officials—who are constitutionally described as “servants of the whole community”—
both tradition and political practice allowed the civil service in Japan to retain and consolidate
its old position in government. The idealization of the scholar-bureaucrat (a Confucian tradition
borrowed from China) made the civil service an independent power centre. Political struggles in
the Diet led to constantly changing ministries, and individual ministers rarely stayed at a post
long enough to establish firm control of their administration. As in many democratic countries
with volatile political systems, administrative control tended to pass to senior civil servants.
Developing nations

Less-developed countries have had to face the opposite problem with their civil services. After
World War II many such countries became independent before they had developed effective
administrative structures or bodies of trained civil servants. Few of the colonial powers had
trained indigenous administrators sufficiently. The British left a viable administrative structure
in India and a partly Indianized civil service, but the newly independent Pakistan had few
experienced civil servants. The Belgians left the Congo without any trained administrative or
technical staff, and for some years there was near anarchy.

Even when they inherited reasonably efficient administrative organizations, the newly
independent countries’ politicians frequently proved incapable of fulfilling their supporters’
expectations. Civil servants from the old colonial powers who remained behind often found
radical policies and new masters uncongenial. The resulting exodus of many such civil servants
worsened matters, for indigenous civil servants were seldom an adequate substitute.

The lack of qualified personnel sometimes led to not only a reduction in efficiency but also a
decline in administrative morality. Nepotism, tribalism, and corruption as well as inefficiency in
the civil service were difficulties often added to the other trials of independence. In many
countries the incapacity of the civil service was a factor leading to military rule, as were the
political failings of the elected leaders. Military regimes were frequently the last resort of a
country where the civil power failed to cope with the problems of independence. Consequently,
the United Nations (UN), in conjunction with the governments of advanced countries, began to
develop training programs for civil servants from underdeveloped countries. The first request
came from Latin America, which led to the founding of a school of public administration in
Brazil, followed in 1953 by an Advanced School of Public Administration for Central America.
Various other international organizations, including the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development and the World Bank, supported institutions for the training of
administrators in less-developed countries. Such institutions included the Arab Planning
Institute in Kuwait, the Arab Organization of Administrative Sciences in Jordan, and the Inter-
American School of Public Administration in Brazil. Civil servants from less-developed nations
also studied administration at such places as the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, the
Institute of Local Government Studies in Birmingham, England, and the International Institute
of Public Administration in Paris.

After the 1970s the international agencies gave less help toward training, on the assumption—
often unrealized—that the less-developed nations would take on greater responsibility
themselves. Training also tended to be generalist and academic, leading to acute shortages of
trained administrators in specialized fields such as finance and planning. However,
organizations such as the British Council began in the early 1980s to remedy some of these
deficiencies.

5 Interesting Facts About the History of Public Administration

Although you may not think it, public administration has been an active part of society since
Alexander the Great ruled the Greek kingdom of Macedon. With a history that dates back all
the way before Christ, there’s bound to be some pretty interesting public administration facts.
With societal management in mind, here are five compelling historical facts about public
administration.

1. Administration in the Antiquity Era

The first signs of public administration date back to 8th and 7th century BC, which is better
known as the Antiquity Era. During this time the kings, pharaohs, and emperors that ruled
ancient Greece chose citizens to act as their “eyes and ears” for public affairs.
This led to the concept of democracy, which was thrust into the social spotlight by Plato around
400 BC. Plato’s democratic efforts made way for a Greek empire that chose leaders based on
the opinion of the people. This is also the time when politicians began campaigning to the
people, which further developed the public administration atmosphere.

2. Machiavelli’s Organizational Efforts

Fast-forward ten centuries to 1525 AD when politician and philosopher Niccoló Machiavelli
starts organizing public administration into an actual government position. Instead of loosely
assigning citizens as public reporters, Machiavelli proposes a cohesive, organized public
administration system with government groups who dedicate themselves to administrative
causes.

3. Woodrow Wilson’s Famed Essay

More than three hundred years later, well after Adam Smith’s discussions on the notion of the
public administration specialization, Woodrow Wilson pens “The Study of Administration” in
1887. The essay highlights certain aspects of the administration process and earns Wilson the
title “Father of Public Administration.”
Among other points discussed, Woodrow’s essay covers the separation of administration and
politics as well as ways to improve the public service sector by training qualified civil servants.
Although the essay wasn’t widely accepted by government officials initially, Wilson’s later
presidency helped him further the idea of an established public administration system.

4. World War II and the Expansion of Public Administration

Directly following World War II, society as a whole decided that the current public
administration system was ineffectual. As a result, the idea of public administration expanded
to include analysis and policy-making practices throughout the government.
Instead of focusing on the bureaucratic side of administration, the new policy-making practices
set forth would concentrate on the public sector. This led to public administration’s inclusion of
psychology, anthropology, and other social sciences.

5. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Although it’s hard to believe, the Americans with Disabilities Act didn’t fall into place until 1990.
The act, which protects disabled Americans in the workplace, was largely set in motion due to
the efforts of numerous public administrators.
As with many community programs brought about by the public administration system, the
ADA is a public policy that is now prevalent throughout every aspect of society, not just the
workplace.
Based on this short walk through history, it’s plain to see that there’s more to public
administration than you might think.

Neoclassical theory of management is an extended version of the classical management theory.

It arose out of the critique of classical theory. Theorists worked on a new approach by using
classical theory as the bedrock by focusing more on human relations and behavioral science.
People also refer to neoclassical theory as ‘behavioral theory of organization‘ or ‘human
relations’ or ‘new classical theory of management.’
Due to its new approach, neoclassical organizational theory is the working principle behind
most modern theories of organizations.
Let’s dive deep into neoclassical management to help you understand in detail.
1. What Is Neoclassical Theory?
2. Two Movements In The Neoclassical Theory Of Management
3. Elements Of Neoclassical Theory Of Management
4. Criticism Of Neoclassical Theory Of Management
5. Brush Up Your Management Skills

What Is Neoclassical Theory?

As the name suggests, neoclassical consists of two parts: neo and classical. Neo means new,
and classical refers to the work done by a group of economists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
In the classical theory, management focus was on job content and physical resources. Classical
management theorists considered humans as an appendage to a machine. However, critics
were of the view that this theory lacks compassion toward people. The organizations working
on this principle are keeping emotional beings in the same category as machines.
With neoclassical organizational theory, theorists put forward incorporating behavioral sciences
into management to address the shortcomings of classical theory.
The essential features of the neoclassical approach of management are:

1. The Business Organization Is A Social System

2. The Human Factor Is The Most Critical Element In This Social System
3. Social And Psychological Factors Play A Crucial Role In Determining Productivity And
Employee Satisfaction
4. The Management Should Also Develop Social And Leadership Skills Apart From
Technical Skills. They Should Think More About The Welfare Of Workers
5. Productivity In An Organization Is Directly Related To Employee Morale.
Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon are some of the famous neoclassical theorists.
They are responsible for introducing and experimenting with the neoclassical approach.
So what is neoclassical approach? Their experiments underline that there are various
motivational factors for a person to meet specific requirements.
Here’s how three theorists worked on the new classical theory of management:

Elton Mayo
In 1927, the Western Electric Company invited a group of researchers led by Elton Mayo to join
their Hawthorne plant in Chicago. The researchers carried out experiments at the plant that
later became popular as the ‘Hawthorne Experiment.’
The objective of the experiment was to study if workers would be more productive depending
upon different levels of illumination in the factory. Based on the findings in the initial three
years of this experiment, researchers saw increased worker productivity when lighting
conditions improved. They claimed that workers’ motivation increased due to interest shown
by the company in them and their well-being. It indicates the importance of using a neoclassical
approach of management.
Also, the solidarity among workers increased satisfaction in the work. Mayo and his team
revealed that managers should also focus on social factors such as employee relationships. Else,
they would have to deal with resistance and lower performance.
You must also pay heed to the fact that Elton Mayo’s findings have their share of critics.

Chester Barnard
Chester Barnard published his famous book ‘The Functions of the Executive in 1938. The book
provided a base for the formation and development of various management theories.
In his book, Chester explains a comprehensive theory of behavior in formal organizations that
pivots around cooperation. He underlines that people in executive roles must foster a sense of
purpose, moral codes, ethical visions and create formal and informal communication systems.
According to Chester, people should cooperate. There is no place for conflicts among workers.
In both classical and neoclassical organization theory, conflict has no place in an organization.

Herbert Simon
Herbert Simon found out that classical organizational theories are inapplicable to several
administrative situations facing managers.
Herbert tried to apply classical theories to current situations of his time, but they didn’t fit. He
also contradicted Henri Fayol’s work in management, proving them to be mere proverbs of
administrations rather than principles.

What Is Neoclassical Theory?

As the name suggests, neoclassical consists of two parts: neo and classical. Neo means new,
and classical refers to the work done by a group of economists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
In the classical theory, management focus was on job content and physical resources. Classical
management theorists considered humans as an appendage to a machine. However, critics
were of the view that this theory lacks compassion toward people. The organizations working
on this principle are keeping emotional beings in the same category as machines.
With neoclassical organizational theory, theorists put forward incorporating behavioral sciences
into management to address the shortcomings of classical theory.
The essential features of the neoclassical approach of management are:

1. The Business Organization Is A Social System

2. The Human Factor Is The Most Critical Element In This Social System
3. Social And Psychological Factors Play A Crucial Role In Determining Productivity And
Employee Satisfaction
4. The Management Should Also Develop Social And Leadership Skills Apart From
Technical Skills. They Should Think More About The Welfare Of Workers
5. Productivity In An Organization Is Directly Related To Employee Morale.
Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon are some of the famous neoclassical theorists.
They are responsible for introducing and experimenting with the neoclassical approach.
So what is neoclassical approach? Their experiments underline that there are various
motivational factors for a person to meet specific requirements.
Here’s how three theorists worked on the new classical theory of management:

Two Movements In The Neoclassical Theory Of Management

The neoclassical organizational theory talks about ways and ideas that focus on the emotional
beings of the organization. There are two primary sources of the neoclassical theory of
organization: the human relations movement and the behavioral science approach.
The human relations movement regarded organization as a social system. Social physiologists
and sociologists put focus on group dynamics and promoted people-management skills in
addition to technical skills.
The behavioral science approach considers human behavior in organizations and promotes the
development of human beings and its benefits at the individual and organizational levels.
Let’s take a look at how the work of these various sociologists and psychologists
promoted neoclassical organizational theory.

Elements Of Neoclassical Theory Of Management

There are three elements of neo-classical theory:

1. The Individual
The Neoclassical Theory Of Organization Emphasized Individual Differences Ignored
Earlier In The Classical Theory. Every Individual Has Emotions, Feelings, Hopes,
Aspirations, And Expectations. They Have Got Their Own Merit.

2. Work Groups
Workers Are Not Isolated But Part Of Certain Groups, Which Are Informal
Organizations. Management Must Integrate These Informal Organizations With The
Formal Ones.

3. Participative Management
The Neoclassical Approach Of Management Suggests The Participation Of Workers
In Management.
As The Neoclassical Theory Is Employee-Oriented, Workers’ Participation In Planning
Job Contents And Operations Will Improve Productivity.
Criticism Of Neoclassical Theory Of Management
The following are the main criticisms of this theory:
 The Theory Is Merely An Extension Of Classical Theory With Human Insights Attached
To It
 The Theory Is Outdated As The Situational And Contingency Theories Address Its
Loopholes
 It Assumes Every Organization Runs By A Single Method Irrespective Of The
Environment
Brush Up Your Management Skills
Excellent management skills help any organization grow and flourish. The art of people
management is more in demand than ever because of work pressure and the competitive
environment. Harappa’s Manage Projects Expertly pathway will guide you in becoming the best
manager you can be.
Harappa lets you navigate the contours of management with 360-degree learning modules.
Learn the most in-demand management skills with Harappa and take the next leap in your
career.

The key difference between classical and neo classical theory is that the classical
theory assumes that a worker’s satisfaction is based only on physical and
economic needs, whereas the neoclassical theory considers not only physical
and economic needs, but also the job satisfaction, and other social needs.
The classical theory came into public in the 19th century and early 20th when
businesses were more focused on large scale manufacturing and wanted to
enhance the productivity and efficiency of operations. However, this theory is no
longer in practice. Furthermore, neoclassical theory is an alteration of classical
theory.

CONTENTS

1. Overview and Key Difference

2. What is Classical Theory
3. What is Neo Classical Theory
4. Relationship Between Classical and Neo Classical Theory
5. Side by Side Comparison – Classical vs Neo Classical Theory in Tabular Form
6. Summary

What is Classical Theory?

Classical management theory is based on the assumption that employees work to

satisfy their physical and economic needs. It does not discuss job satisfaction and
other social needs. However, it emphasises specialization of labour, centralized
leadership and decision-making, as well as profit maximization.

The theory came into practice in the 19 th century and early 20th century. Although
this theory is no longer in common use in modern society, some of its principles
still remain valid, especially in small businesses.

Based on the classical management theory, three concepts contribute to an ideal

workplace:

Hierarchical Structure

There are three layers in an organization structure. The top layer is the owners,
while the middle layer is the middle management who oversees the entire
operation. The third layer is supervisors who take part in the day to day operations
and engage in employee’s activities and training.

Specialization

The entire operation is broken down to small, task specified areas. The employees
are specialized in a single operation. Thus, this concept helps to improve
productivity and efficiency while avoiding multiskilled employees.

Incentives

The concept describes the extrinsic motivation of employees for rewards. It will
make the employees work harder; as a result, it will improve the productivity,
efficiency and profit of the organization.
Furthermore, the classical management theory follows an autocratic
leadership model to a certain extent where it is considered as the central part of
the management system. A single leader takes decisions and communicates them
down the line for suitable actions. Thus, this process is quick in comparison to
decision making and execution by a team.

Moreover, classical management theory outlines a clear structure of the

management, clear identification of roles and responsibilities of employees and
division of labour to increase productivity. However, expecting workers to work like
machines and disregarding job satisfaction of employees are the major flaws of this
theory.

What is Neo Classical Theory?

The neoclassical theory is an alteration and improvement of classical management

theory. The theory lies in three main concepts described below.

Flat Structure

In this concept, there is a wide span of control. Moreover, the chain of

communication is shorter, and it is free from hierarchical control.

Decentralization

Decentralization is more close to the flat structure because of the wider span of
control. Furthermore, it allows autonomy and initiative at the lower level. It also
supports employees’ carrier growth in future.
Informal Organization

It emphasizes both formal and informal organizations. The formal organisation

describes the intentions of top management for the purpose of interactions among
people. However, an informal organisation is necessary to find flaws of formal
organisation and to satisfy the social and psychological needs of employees.
Management uses the informal organisation for overcoming resistance to change
on the part of workers and for a fast communication process. Thus, both formal
and informal organisations are interdependent upon each other.

Moreover, the neo classical management theory describes human behaviour in

terms of organizational functioning. Further, this theory gives more priority to
human needs, like job satisfaction and other social needs.

What is the Relationship Between Classical and Neo Classical Theory?

 Although neoclassical theory is considered as an improvement of

classical theory, both management theories do not describe
incompetency, and this is considered as a short-sighted perspective.

What is the Difference Between Classical and Neo Classical Theory?

The classical theory came into public in the 19th century and early 20th. At that time,
the management was more focused on large scale manufacturing and wanted to
enhance the productivity and efficiency of operations. Their strategy to increase
them based on a rewarding system for workers, luring them into working more to
get a good income. Generally, classical theory only considered the physical and
economic needs of employees. Neoclassical theory, on the other hand, is a
modification of the classical theory. This theory pays more attention to employees
needs and expectations; this not only considers physical and economic needs, but
also other social needs such as job satisfaction, and carrier growth. So, this is the
key difference between classical and neo classical theory.
Moreover, there is a distinct difference between classical and neo classical theory in
terms of their characteristics like organizational structure, strategies,
considerations, rewarding systems etc. Classical theory has a hierarchical
organization structure with layers of management. A single person, most of the
times, the owner, makes all the decisions. Moreover, the employees are motivated
to work by an incentive system. In contrast, neo classical theory has a flat
organization structure with no layers of management. Most of the time, decision-
making and execution involve a team.

The following table provides more comparisons regarding the difference between
classical and neo classical theory.

Summary- Classical Theory vs Neo Classical Theory

The key difference between Classical and neo classical theory is that the classical
theory only considers physical and economic needs to satisfy an employee,
whereas the neo classical theory, not only considers physical, economic needs, but
also considers needs like job satisfaction and carrier development.