The classical theory of organization postulated the bureaucratic system of organization.

Posted: January 5th, 2023

Student’s name

Institutional affiliation

Course

Date

As the exposure of the ordinary to science and technology through education and the internet increases, so does their administration’s order, commonly referred to as the public administration call for change. Economy, efficiency, effectiveness and social equity make the four pillars of public administration. In every society involving human beings, there must be a centralized system of governance tasked with systematically arranging and coordinating the various programs within the community, such as security, health, and human services (Osipov et al. 200). Transparency and accountability participation, efficiency and effectiveness, subsidiarity, equity, and access to services form the basic principles of public administration, which have been igniting the public administration reforms from the bureaucratic way to the current management-oriented system through six paradigms.

In American history, public administration has been guided through six pillars of paradigms. As Henry argued in his model, the onset of public administration took off following United States independence in 1776 (Turaev and Abrar 2020). The promulgation of the American constitution in 1789 meant the establishment of domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare among the American residents, as well as the provision of liberty hence the prosperity of the United States. The insufficient bureaucracy that formed the early government has been ruled to have been inefficient and lacked accountability, thus spearheading public administration governance. The classical theory of organization postulated the bureaucratic system of organization.

Politics-administration dichotomy paradigm 1900-1926

The public administration dichotomy paradigm was formulated to separate politics from the administrative functions of government to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in governance. As argued in the pioneering of the era, Wilson was motivated by the rampant corruption witnessed in this period (Kuhlmann 2019). Political science, as defined, involves the election of the various political representatives and the enactment of the different legislation by the elected legislators. At the same time, public administration consists of the various civil servants who implement the policies as passed by the legislators. As postulated by Wilson, the separation aimed to reduce the likelihood of private citizens capturing public policies (Turaev and Abrar 2020). Woodrow Wilson, in his seminal article in 1897, advocated for four critical factors of public administration; the separation of politics from public administration, improvement of the efficiency of administration with businesslike approaches and attitudes in the daily operations, comparative analysis of both private and public systems of organization and the progress of the public services effectiveness through training and managing of the civil servants as well as the merit-based assessment of the civil servants (Haque and Shamsul 140). The distinction of politics from the administration dichotomy was strengthened through the correspondence of values and facts dichotomy.

Principles of administration 1927-1937

This paradigm, as postulated by Wilson, was advancement to management orientation as a result of the public administration nay and administration management to science status. Therefore this implicated that various scientific principles of administrated could be emulated as a model of increasing efficiency and effectiveness of government (Ikeanyibe et al. 1316916). Like scientific procedures in experiments, Wilson’s principles include; planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordination and reporting, and budgeting to ensure better proceedings of running government agencies. The codes are irrespective of culture, sector, environment and missions of the various organizational setting increase effectiveness and administration efficiency (Chopra and Sandhya 2020). These principles, as Wilson advocated, straightened the government paths of administration by making its functions less businesslike hence purifying the organizations and crowning the duties assigned with dutifulness.

Administrative science paradigm 1950-1970

This era has been described as the period of deflation of the dichotomy and puncturing of the previously instituted administration principles. This is since political scientists revolted to reclaim public administration whilst there was extreme enthusiasm by the management theorists intending to retain the discipline’s claim. The public administration dichotomy, as a result, was eliminated on the declaration of politics in separation (Putro et al. 2020). This, therefore, indicated the expansion of the partisan and corrupt politics to include the public-policy formation in the scholarly meaning. The theories of administration principles were concluded to be not existing, hence leaving the organizational behaviour as the only challenge; therefore, the bureaucratic approach as public administration at this phase of development was termed a synonym of political interest. However, the step of action led to over bureaucratization as public administration diffused across the various government aspects in policy determination, implementation, services, and economy (Ndaguba et al. 8). Therefore, public administration stressed building institutions, bureaucratization, nationalization, as well as organizational and administrative capacity building with the aim of national and economic development. State welfare was, however, crowned as a result of the paradigm.

Public administration as management paradigm 1956-1970

By illustration of the paradigm, Wilson aimed to create government procedures to be more businesslike as he renewed the development of the principles of administration. This era is illustrated by emulating the master of public administration to the master of business administration. Master of public administration by the MBA wannabes was more determined to re-brand, though general management and public administration do not differ significantly in public administration scholarship. The public was more illustrated by the political scientists, while the MBA wannabes more illustrated leadership. The paradigm’s result is that the two disciplines did not offer locus and focus for the new acclaimed science in public administration and the field of study, which the pathfinder scholars had canvased.

Public administration as public management paradigm 1970

The aim of this stage of paradigm was more determined to reestablish public administration as an autonomous field of study. Since the focus was hierarchical, bureaucracy resulted in shifting into markets and private sector organizations, which illustrated a new general management paradigm (Mergel et al. 2020). The new public management, as described, confronted the problem of inefficiency in the administrative system. The paradigm originated from the fusion of the economic theories with private sector techniques, with the teachings being centred on state withdrawal. Thus, the new public management generated the shift to its use in the private sector from the public administration as it was traditionally believed hence paving for the governance paradigm (Pyun et al. 250). Therefore, the paradigm shift in the public administration has thus being governed by practice rather than ideology.

Governance paradigm 1990- present

The governance paradigm, as defined to be the execution of power or authority by the various political leaders in commitment to ensure the well-being of the country’s citizens, can be traced to the 1990s. The governance paradigm share origin and conceptual connotation with the new public management, hence the paradigm’s success (Reiter, Renate, and Tanja Klenk 15). The two systems try to break down the hierarchical structure of governance, which have been inherited from the traditional model, thus decentralizing the government system (Withanachchi et al.98). However, new public management differs from governance through the postulation of the non-governmental actors to reduce costs. In contrast, increasing efficiency and limiting the power of the state, the governance paradigm is almost similar as it advocates for the involvement of the civil society to enhance participation as well as recognizing the capacity of the networks in the civil society in the provision of self-management in policy areas (Torfing et al. 2020). The reform initiatives as guided by new public administration and governance orientation have undermined the various critical aspects in the governance of public affairs like fairness, justice, participation, and representation, hence pervading the public value paradigm. Therefore the new orientations will still stress the bureaucratic paradigm in providing an indispensable foundation in the public administration field (Casady et al. 170). This is because the government rules through the collaboration of hierarchical bureaucracy and networks to achieve efficiency in the various aspects affecting the government. Preclusion, the role of government in utilizing the multiple sectors in the provision of services while the same government regulates and coordinates (Moyson et al. 612). The administration’s network form has thus incorporated the use of technology in the management, commonly referred to as e-governance.

Ultimately, the public administration has been undergoing reforms since the 1770s, from the bureaucratic system of governance to the current management through six paradigms. The six paradigms include the politics-administration dichotomy, administration, administrative science paradigm, public administration, public management paradigm and the governance paradigm. The governance paradigm, which forms the current reform paradigm, relies on the efficacy of the private sector and business managerialism and focuses on the role of non-governmental actors and networks in the production of goods and the provision of services. Hence the current paradigm focuses on the reconfiguration of the public sector through citizen participation and network governance. In public administration, the government system has thus been devolved in the mode of service delivery as well in the various units of analysis.

Works cited

Casady, Carter B., et al. “(Re) defining public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the new public governance (NPG) paradigm: an institutional maturity perspective.” Public Management Review Vol. 22, no.2, 2020, pp. 161-183. https//10.1080/14719037.2019.1577909 

Chopra, Sandhya. “Unit-11 New Public Administration approach.” Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, 2020. http://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/57740/3

Haque, M. Shamsul. “The changing foundations of public administration: from identity to modernity to diversity.” International Review of Public Administration Vol. 24, no.2, 2019, pp. 138-145. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/12294659.2019.1632042 .

Ikeanyibe, Okey Marcellus, Ogbonnaya Eze Ori, and Arinze Emmanuel Okoye. “Governance paradigm in public administration and the dilemma of national question in Nigeria.” Cogent Social Sciences Vol.3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1316916. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916

Kuhlmann, Sabine, and Hellmut Wollmann. Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336013055

Mergel, Ines, Sukumar Ganapati, and Andrew B. Whitford. “Agile: A new way of governing.” Public Administration Review (2020). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340684906

Moyson, Stéphane, et al. “Organizational socialization in public administration research: A systematic review and directions for future research.” The American Review of Public Administration Vol. 48, no. 6, 2018, pp. 610-627. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074017696160

Ndaguba, Emeka A., and Edwin OC Ijeoma. “Disentangling conceptual antecedence for indigenous paradigm.” Africa’s Public Service Delivery & Performance Review Vol. 7, no. 1, 2019, pp. 8. https://apsdpr.org/325/487

Osipov, V. S., et al. “Institutional analysis of public administration system.” International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research Vol. 15, no. 15, 2017, pp. 193-203. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345862547

Putro, Warsito Eko, and Ida Hayu Hikmawati. “The Powerless of Bureaucracy in Perspective of Public Administration (Case Study of Bureaucracy Inconsistency in Government Administration).” ICISPE 2019: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Indonesian Social and Political Enquiries, ICISPE 2019, 21-22 October 2019, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. European Alliance for Innovation, 2020. https://eudl.eu/proceedings/ICISPE/2019

Reiter, Renate, and Tanja Klenk. “The manifold meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’–a systematic literature review.” International Review of Administrative Sciences Vol. 85, no. 1, 2019, pp. 11-27. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020852318759736

Pyun, Hae-Ok, and Claire Edey Gamassou. “Looking for public administration theories?” Public Organization Review Vol. 18, no. 2, 2018, pp.245-261. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312876856

Torfing, Jacob, et al. Public governance paradigms: Competing and co-existing. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03003930.2020.1847904

Turaev, Abrar. “The Impact of Changes in Public Administration on the Development of Neoconservative Ideas in the United States.”  http://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJAST/article/view/8387/4753

Withanachchi, Sisira S., et al. “A paradigm shift in water quality governance in a transitional context: A critical study about the empowerment of local governance in Georgia.” Water Vol. 10, no. 2, 2018, pp. 98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32269423