Government: A Public Administration Perspective

A Public Administration Perspective

Jos C. N. Raadschelders

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317469421
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: British History
• Index: History

Most public administration texts overly compartmentalize the subject and don't interconnect the various specializations within government, which leaves a serious gap in preparing students for public service. Government: A Public Administration Perspective is designed to fill that void. It provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary view of government that includes perspectives from political science, political theory, international relations, organizational sociology, economics, and history. The text draws on classic and modern literature from all these areas to analyze government at four different levels - ideational, societal, organizational, and individual layers. It links public administration's various subfields - human resource management, budgeting, policy making, organizational theory, etc. - into a holistic framework for the study of government. It also includes an extensive bibliography drawing from American and European literature in support of the book's global, historical, and comparative approach.

1 GOVERNMENT: THE MOST CENTRAL SOCIAL PHENOMENON OF OUR TIME

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.

—Abraham Lincoln, 1858

The difference between a good manager and an extraordinary manager lies not in one’s technical skills, but in one’s sense of one’s self and one’s surroundings, a sense that can only be derived through thoughtful reflection, through theory.

—Robert Denhardt, 1984

Government and governance are as old as the human race. Every society that we know of through records had rulers, whatever their titles. At an abstract level, government is inherent to society. It is a constant in society. At a more concrete level, however, nothing about governance and government is constant. Society is always in flux, so styles of governing must change. The institutional arrangements for governance are a reflection of the dominant worldview(s), of the dominant theories about the interaction between citizen and government, and of the dominant ideas about organizational structures and processes. In short, government is a reflection of what is valued by its environment.

In the first section of this introduction, I consider the nature of contemporary government, and especially the fact that while government is bound by culture, it can be studied through more “universal” concepts. Given that government is always in flux, I briefly discuss what is new about government by means of a two-tiered approach to historical time: comparing contemporary government with that of 100 years ago, and comparing government of the late modern era (i.e., the twentieth century) to that of the early modern era (before the late eighteenth century) (section 1.2). This approach helps us understand why the study of government proliferated across the entire spectrum of the social sciences in the twentieth century (section 1.3). In section 1.4, I explore attempts to link knowledge about government and the integrative role that the study of Public Administration¹ can play in that endeavor. The conclusions of section 1.4 serve as the basis for the framework of this study, which is presented in section 1.5. In section 1.6, I outline the structure of the book, and in section 1.7, I discuss the audiences that could benefit from this effort.

1.1. Government in an Ever Changing World: Universal but Culture-Bound

The internal structure and functioning of public organizations, which is the traditional focus of the study of Public Administration, reflect what citizens and society at large desire from government. As I argue in chapters 2 and 3, a definition of government involves the authoritative allocation of values by politics and administration. It has become fashionable to use the term governance instead as if it were a synonym (cf. March and Olsen 1995; Dror 2001). The concept of governance, however, refers to all organizations and institutions that are involved in the structuring of society. These include, next to governmental actors, also nongovernmental actors (e.g., churches, sports clubs, social movements, global networks, mass media), independent agencies (grant committees, health management authorities), and private industries and corporations (Dror 2001, 169–170). Without any doubt, government is the single largest actor in the governance of society.

This is a generic study in government, but since the traditions and customs of government very much mirror what society considers acceptable in a given period and culture, this is first and foremost a study of government in Western democracies (with illustrations from the United States and Western European countries). The contemporary concepts, theories, and models about government have been developed primarily in the Western world, which means that they are grounded in Western values. Western Public Administration has been accused of being ethnocentric, especially when its concepts, theories, and models are used as a blueprint for reform in non-Western countries. This use of Western Public Administration knowledge for non-Western reforms can be seen in two very different ways.

First, and most commonly, is the implicit assumption that Western models of government are an example to follow by others because they are better, more civilized, more democratic, and so forth. The (partial) failure of public sector reforms elsewhere often can be explained by the application of Western thought in societies with very different legal, social, moral, and ethical value systems. It is specifically in the functioning of governments in their respective societies that we can see the importance of culture and values. The usable or practical value of Western-based Public Administration may be limited, but the substantive value of comparing Western and non-Western administrative systems is indispensable for the understanding of our own and other governments (Dahl 1947, 11; Riggs 1998, 29).

Second, recognizing that the functioning of public administration and the content of its study are culture-specific, however, does not mean that the concepts, theories, and models used have no analytical value or relevance to other parts of the world. One could argue that at an abstract level, the various challenges of governing are more or less universal. These include establishing and maintaining (a) order and stability in society, (b) a balance of power between rulers and ruled, (c) a balance between the political and the administrative branches of government, (d) a balance between individual and collective arrangements, and—more specifically—a balance between service delivery by public and private institutions, (e) a balance between centralization and decentralization, and so forth. It is at the abstract level that the analytical tools (concepts, models, theories) of contemporary (Western) Public Administration can be useful (Heady 1996).

In contemporary Western democracies, government has assumed a place more central to their societies than ever before. Given the degree to which government has penetrated society, given the range of services provided and activities exercised by government, and given the degree to which individual citizens have come to depend upon government, it is arguably one of the most, if not the most, central social phenomena of our time. In the course of the twentieth century, many of the social sciences have included the study of this phenomenon because it is the only remaining institutional arrangement that truly binds society and—at least—has the capacity to serve as society’s binding force.

In historical perspective, Western government as we know it—with its freedom of elections, welfare provisions, large bureaucracies, sense of fairness and equity as set in law, emphasis on government by and for the people—is of recent origin, dating back only 100 years or so. It is in the twentieth century that government began operating at a level (of activity, societal penetration, organizational size and complexity, and so forth) unheard of before. From early on, the study of Public Administration originated in the midst of the need to buttress the field with the kind of knowledge that helped government respond to the various social needs that emerged as a consequence of democratization, urbanization, industrialization, population growth, and (more recently) internationalization. And Public Administration has responded to the public demand for a more responsive and responsible government. While the choice of a particular public policy is ultimately political, the administrative structures and processes to implement these policies have been served very well indeed by both the field’s (i.e., public administration) as well as the study’s (i.e., Public Administration) attention to organizational structure, policy and decision-making styles, the management of human and financial resources, and so forth. Over time, a wealth of experience and knowledge has been accumulated in field and study, and while this has not always been of a problem-solving nature, it has certainly been enlightening.

The rapid development of the study of Public Administration in this century (Fry 1989) is an illustration of the importance that government, or, as Waldo (1984) and Chandler (1987) would say, the administrative state, has come to play in society at large. In fact, many scholars, including Woodrow Wilson, have expressed some weariness when observing that society and government change faster than the study can keep up with.

1.2. What Is New About Government in Our Time?

The major features of contemporary government, such as a wide range of public services, laws and regulations, and a fairly uncorrupted public workforce, have become so common that their existence is taken for granted and their origins forgotten. When we look only at the present features and future challenges of government, we lose sight of the fact that what we take for granted is really of very recent origin. A focus on the present, the day-today events, deprives us of the deeper understanding of longer-term developments (see also section 5 below). The study of government is generally limited to the twentieth century. Studies of the welfare state, for instance, often present current challenges (the short term) in the context of its emergence and proliferation from the late nineteenth century onward (the middle range). The uniqueness of the welfare state, though, becomes apparent only when we take an even longer time perspective that would include the changes from medieval to early modern and modern views about and institutions for private and/or public collective provisions for welfare.

We can look at contemporary government in different ways. One way is to look at our own day and age, circa 2002, and contrast that with government in the year 1900. We can then see remarkable and rapid changes. Government as we know it today is very different from government a century ago. Throughout this book, the reader will find illustrations of this change. The second way is to look at our era, the twentieth century, in comparison to government preceding the modern era. In this view, we recognize that between the 1880s and the 1900s a new type of government emerged that was very different from the earlier types and the foundations of which still exist today. Thus, the late nineteenth up to the late twentieth century is a coherent period, in sharp contrast with early modern times. The discussion of these two ways will be organized by four very simple questions: We will pay more attention to the past century, since the long-term perspective has been presented in an earlier study (Raadschelders 1998a).

A. Why Does Government Do Certain Things?

The major challenges in society at present are of such magnitude that no single institutional actor will be able to confront them. Among these challenges are growing population size and diversity, the technological revolution, increased connectedness among nation-states, regional and global environmental stress, and a growing disparity between the rich and the poor (both between countries as well as within countries).

While government is not necessarily the only actor that can and should muster the capacity to confront these challenges, it is the sole actor that has the legal and moral authority to serve as a binding and coordinating force in society. However, the representativeness, impartiality, and legitimacy of government are challenged by the increasing diversity of society in the Western world. Indeed, a century ago, demographic diversity was not at all relevant to the representativeness of government. At the same time, more people are somehow dependent upon government than ever before (through entitlements and social services, as well as through employment in both the public sector and in businesses and industries that produce goods and services for government). The technological revolution has not only accelerated the information flows but also, for instance, subjects the First Amendment to a more serious test than ever before. Should government monitor, restrict, or even ban Web sites that preach hate against minorities and that reach a potentially infinite audience? Yet another feature is that governments share—and at least pay lip service to—global responsibilities for peace, a cleaner environment, and a fairer distribution of welfare. International economic, military, political, and cultural cooperation have assumed enormous proportions.

A century ago, government’s binding force was also grounded in legal authority, but local communities and churches served equally to bind people on the basis of social control and moral authority. Fewer people depended upon government for their livelihood. Environmental problems were not yet an issue, and few people were concerned with the gap between rich and poor. It was in the twentieth century that government and society penetrated each other. Government’s role changed from being the political organization of society to providing the entire foundation of and framework for society. When we compare the past 100 to 120 years with prior decades and centuries, the differences are equally striking because early governments functioned in a rural and agrarian society in which a variety of collective services were provided by local and private actors. Government’s intervention was thus limited to the maintenance of public order and safety and some economic regulation.

B. What Does Government Do?

Public organizations currently provide an enormous number of services. While the individual’s rights are protected by law and while policies seek to meet the needs of individuals, laws and policies are first and foremost aimed at providing services to identifiable collectives (senior citizens, disabled, orphans, single parents, unemployed, youth, criminals, professionals, women, gays, native Americans, etc.). The fact that the public provision of welfare services (in the areas of social security, health, social services, education, housing, water, and so forth) is huge today in comparison to 100 years ago is largely forgotten. Insofar as collective services were provided back then by a public organization, it targeted individuals rather than collectives. Yet the innovations in government (in terms of new policies, new organizations, styles of functioning, etc.) in the last quarter of the nineteenth century link that period to ours and make it distinct from earlier times when the traditional tasks of government included maintenance of public order and safety (the military and the police), the judiciary, and taxation.

C. How Does Government Do It?

A century ago, government embarked upon new policies and programs in response to the equally new developments in the economy and the structure and concentration of labor (industrialization and urbanization). Given the growth of public services, we now have a government that is larger than anything that could be imagined 100 years ago. The impact of public service growth is visible, for instance, in personnel size and in the composition of the public workforce, in the high degree of organizational differentiation, in the annual revenue and expenditure, and in the percentage of public sector consumption of the gross national product. By every measure, government a century ago was small. Also, the various levels of government now are much more interdependent than ever before. Where public service delivery now largely rests upon shared and coordinated efforts in a system of intergovernmental relations, government and public service delivery were still fairly insulated by town and region a century ago. As a consequence, government today utilizes much more middle-range and longer-term planning. A century ago, the concept of social engineering did not even exist.

However, as different as the late nineteenth and the late twentieth centuries are in terms of the structure and function of government, much of what is now “normal” originated in the late nineteenth century. It was then that government started to grow in terms of public services, which translated into a growth of personnel size, organizational differentiation, and revenue and expenditure at a pace markedly different from that in previous centuries. Another important aspect of how government functions today is that it is more open, accessible, and accountable than a century ago. The technology needed for this openness and accessibility developed in the twentieth century (radio, television, computers, information networks such as e-mail and the Internet). Government attempts to inform the public through its own venues as well as through the media. Most public organizations have Web sites and informational brochures. The media also seek out government, especially to uncover abuse of power or unethical and immoral behavior. In th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. Government: The Most Central Social Phenomenon of Our Time
• Part I. Why Government? The Ideational (Institutional) Level
• Part II. What Services Does Government Provide? The Societal (Institutional) Level
• Part III. How Does Government Operate? The Organizational (Actor) Level
• Part IV. Who Governs? The Individual (Actor) Level
• Bibliography
• Author and Name Index
• Subject Index