Evolution of Public Administration as a Discipline

"The true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good
administration." - Alexander Hamilton

Introduction
Public administration, as a discipline, has undergone a significant evolution, marked by
paradigm shifts that have shaped its theoretical and practical foundations. The study of
public administration encompasses the management and implementation of
government policies and programs, emphasising the relationship between government
and society. Woodrow Wilson, often regarded as the father of public administration,
introduced the concept in 1887, emphasising the need for intellectual resources in the
management of the state. The intellectual roots of public administration were also
influenced by practical initiatives, such as the reformist "public service movement" in
the early twentieth century, which led to the establishment of think tanks for public
service, such as the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, laying the groundwork for
the intellectual and practical development of public administration. This answer will
explore the evolution of public administration, focusing on the six paradigms that have
defined the discipline, as discussed in Chapter 2 of "Public Administration and Public
Affairs" by Nicholas Henry.

Paradigm 1: The Politics/Administration Dichotomy, 1900–1926

The first paradigm of public administration, as articulated by Frank J. Goodnow in 1900,
emphasised the distinction between politics and administration. Goodnow contended
that there were "two distinct functions of government," which he identified with the
title of his time, Goodnow further elaborated on the two concepts by explaining
‘politics’ as what , "has to do with policies or expressions of the state will," while
administration as what "has to do with the execution of these policies" . Goodnow
pointed out that elected politicians and appointed public administrators do different
things , eventually being labelled by academics as the politics/administration
dichotomy.This paradigm laid the groundwork for the separation of political
decision-making from administrative implementation, shaping the early understanding
of public administration as a distinct field of study.

1.1 The Uses of the Dichotomy

As a practical matter, the politics/administration dichotomy offered some protection
for a fledgling profession, particularly when the Great Depression struck in 1929. The
dichotomy held that public administrators merely brought efficiency to the execution
of policies made by elected politicians, and thus, in their bland, bloodless, apolitical,
and clerical way, more than paid for themselves. This is not to say that the dichotomy
amounted to nothing more than a cynical defence of a nascent and threatened
profession. It also was a deeply believed rationale for a profession of public
administration, one that still has some salience to this day.
1.2 The Dilemma of the Dichotomy
Since those who ardently believed in the politics/administration dichotomy would not
accept the reality that public administrators often make policy, it plagued the field for
decades, ultimately displacing the founders' idea that, while politicians and
administrators did different things, they nonetheless must work together for the
greater good. Regrettably, such subtleties were overlooked as public administration
sought its identity during this period. Leonard D. White's "Introduction to the Study of
Public Administration" of 1926, was the first textbook devoted to the field, expressed
the progressive value of public administration at the time: politics must be cleaved
from administration so that the field can develop as a pure science which will assure
the attainment of governmental efficiency.

Paradigm 2: Principles of Public Administration, 1927–1937

During the period of Paradigm 2: Principles of Public Administration (1927–1937), the
field of public administration experienced a "reputational zenith" as the status of public
administration soared. Professional associations for government employees grew
rapidly, and governments increasingly sought advice from the public administration
community on administrative problems. This period was marked by a significant
financial investment in the profession by the Rockefeller family, which poured millions
of dollars into the field, leaving no important part of the public administration
community untouched.

The pioneers of public administration emphasised the importance of principles in

governance. They believed that principles of administration were universally
applicable, irrespective of the purpose of the enterprise or the personnel comprising it.
They understood that these principles were not immutable facts of nature but were
helpful touch points in conveying an understanding of the work of the chief executive.
Additionally, the primary profession devised by the pioneers of public administration,
the local government's chief appointed executive, fulfilled their hopes by improving
governance and enhancing teamwork, leading to more efficient and effective
governance.

However, the period from 1938 to 1950 presented a challenge to the field of public
administration. Dissent from mainstream public administration accelerated, with
objections raised about the separation of politics and administration and the principles
of administration. This led to a fundamental shift in the nature of the field, as the
politics/administration dichotomy was questioned and ultimately abandoned.
Furthermore, the field faced a period of "wreckage" and its reactions, as evidenced by
the financial sector's deregulation in the 1980s and the subsequent economic collapse,
as well as environmental disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. These
events highlighted the need for more stringent regulation and oversight in public
administration to prevent such crises.

In summary, the period of Paradigm 2 marked a significant rise in the status of public
administration, emphasising the importance of principles and the role of appointed top
managers in improving governance. However, the field faced challenges and criticisms,
leading to a fundamental shift in its nature and a growing recognition of the need for
more effective regulation and oversight.

Paradigm 3: The Politics/Administration Dichotomy, 1937–1950

During this period, the dichotomy between politics and administration continued to
influence the field of public administration. The essential thrust was one of public
administration losing its identity within the confines of some "larger" concept,
reflecting the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries and responsibilities of public
administrators.

3.1 Consternation and Contempt

During Paradigm 3, public administration sought to reestablish linkages with political
science, aiming to integrate public administration back into the discipline. However,
this period was marked by consternation and contempt, as public administrationists
were uncertain about their role, leading to a lack of a comprehensive intellectual
framework for the study of public administration. Public administrationists were no
longer sure what they should be doing, and the study of public administration during
this period was characterised by the absence of any fully comprehensive intellectual
framework.

3.2 The Impact of Political Science: Bureaucracy in the Service of Democracy

Despite the disdain with which "the mother discipline" often treated public
administration, political science likely laid some of its normative foundations, such as
pluralism and equality under law, among other democratic values. However, political
science seemed to have less utility in the education of public administrators, as it
primarily focused on intellectualised understanding rather than knowledgeable action.
The epistemologies of political science and public administration were fundamentally
different, with political science's focus being pluralist, specialised, and communal,
while public administration's focus was elitist, synthesising, and hierarchical.

In summary, Paradigm 3 saw public administration arts grappling with their role within
the discipline of political science, facing consternation and contempt, and struggling to
define a comprehensive intellectual framework for the study of public administration.
The impact of political science on public administration was significant, but debates
about the nature of public administration and its relationship with management
persisted during this period.

Paradigm 4: Management, 1950–1970

During Paradigm 4, a "groundswell" of management emerged, with a growing emphasis
on generic management as the logical successor to more "parochial" paradigms such as
public administration and business administration. This period saw a spate of scholars
advocating for the idea that sector, culture, institution, or mission were of little
consequence to efficient and effective administration, promoting the concept that a
body of knowledge exists that is common to the fields of administration. The essential
thrust during this period was one of public administration losing its identity within the
confines of some "larger" concept, leading to debates about whether public
administration was fundamentally a subfield of management.

The impact of management during this paradigm pushed public administration

scholars to rethink what the "public" in public administration really meant. This led to a
reevaluation of the "public" in public administration, focusing on the agency, interest,
and access dimensions of publicness and privateness in society. The management
paradigm also prompted public administration costs to move toward a meaning of
"public" that focused less on agencies and more on whose interest was affected, as well
as the degree of openness to the public found in an organisation's activities, space,
information, and resources.

Furthermore, the forces of the 1960s that promoted the independence of public
administration likely would have withered had skillful educational leaders not
marshalled those forces in the 1970s. This period marked the successful break of public
administration from both political science and management, leading to its emergence
as an autonomous field of study and practice, free from snide asides by political
scientists about public administration's predilection.

Paradigm 5: Public Administration as Public Administration, 1970–Present

The fifth paradigm marked a significant break with both political science and
management, as public administration emerged as an autonomous field of study and
practice. This paradigm represented a successful shift towards defining public
administration on its own terms, free from the influence of other disciplines.

Spanning from 1990 to the present, it witnessed the establishment and growth of
NASPAA, marking a definitive declaration of public administration's epistemological
independence. NASPAA, composed of 285 masters of public administration and related
degree programs, became the nation's professional accrediting agency for these
degrees in 1983, offering a consistent core curriculum nationally and associating with
greater prestige and more effective programs . The statistics of secession and success
in public administration were evident, with a significant percentage of public
administration and related programs being free of other fields, indicating the field's
independence and success .

Moreover, this paradigm saw the resurrection of the politics/administration dichotomy

in the form of a political–administrative continuum, rejecting the notion that public
administration should crouch behind a dichotomizing firewall that protects it from
politics. Instead, it emphasised the co-existence of politics and public administration
on the same social continuum, but as separate and distinct formations of logic, whose
activities sometimes overlap.

In summary, Paradigm 5 marked a significant shift in the field of public administration,

with the establishment of NASPAA, a shift in Americans' governmental thinking, and
the reevaluation of the relationship between politics and public administration,
emphasising their coexistence on the same social continuum.

Paradigm 6: Governance, 1990–Present

The most recent paradigm shift in public administration has been characterised by the
metamorphosis of the roles of the profit, nonprofit, and public sectors, profoundly
altering how governance is approached. This paradigm reflects the evolving nature of
governance in response to globalisation, the Internet, and social media, among other
forces.

6.1 "Making a Mesh of Things": The Rise of Governance

Paradigm 6 witnessed a significant shift in the roles of the profit, nonprofit, and public
sectors, leading to the metamorphosis of governance in unprecedented ways. This
period marked a move away from traditional government control over citizens and the
delivery of public benefits by institutions of the state, towards governance, which
involves configurations of laws, policies, and organisations that control citizens and
deliver public benefits. Governance is institutional and networked, and it correlates
significantly and positively with agencies that perform better than agencies that work
alone.

6.2 Does Governance Work

The rise of governance, also known as governing by network, horizontal governing, and
governing by partnering, has been documented through a unique analysis of more than
800 empirical studies, indicating a general shift away from hierarchical government
towards horizontal governing. This paradigm shift has led to a distinct movement
toward "making a mesh of things," emphasising the importance of small wins and the
benefits of governance in the independent sector, including greater efficiency and
organisational stability.
6.3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: HAPPY AT LAST
Furthermore, public administration now straddles two paradigms, asserting its
independence as a stand-alone field of study and practice, while also emphasising its
paramount purpose of creating and implementing social change for the social good.
This joyful, codependent, paradigmatic merger has been a long time coming, and it has
arrived in style, marking a significant evolution in the field of public administration.

In summary, Paradigm 6 represents a transformative period in public administration,

characterised by the rise of governance, the shift towards networked and horizontal
governing, and the field's newfound independence and purpose.

Conclusion
The evolution of public administration as a discipline has been shaped by these six
paradigms, each representing a distinct phase in the development of the field. From the
early emphasis on the politics/administration dichotomy to the contemporary focus on
governance, public administration has continually adapted to the changing dynamics of
governance and public service. Understanding these paradigms provides valuable
insights into the theoretical and practical foundations of public administration,
highlighting the discipline's ongoing evolution and relevance in contemporary
governance.