Big Questions Flashcards
The Science of PA: Three Problems Robert Dahl (1947)
The first difficulty of constructing a science of public administration stems from the frequent impossibility of excluding normative considerations from the problems of PA (science cannot demonstrate normative values). A second major problem stems from the inescapable fact that a science of public administration must be a study of certain aspects of human behavior. We cannot ignore the study of PA in the context of its social setting. The central difficulty of universal generalizations may be indicated in this way: An administrative class based on merit rests upon four conditions: (1) general political acceptance of the hierarchical idea; (2) the administrative class idea rests upon a scholastic system that creates the educated nonspecialist, and a recruiting system that selects him; (3) the administrative class idea rests upon the acceptance of merit as the criterion of selection; and, (4) a successful administrative class rests upon the condition that such a group possesses the prestige of an elite; for unless the class has an elite status, it is in a poor position to compete against any other elite for the brains and abilities of a nation.
Trends in the Theory of PA John Gaus (1950)
Not only are the terms and definitions ambiguous, but the amount of relevant material (in PA) to be uncovered, appraised, and brought into relation is enormous. Two areas are particularly important to administrative theory. One is that of opinion formation, parties, and legislatures, in which the problems of congressional reorganization and of American parties in the light of postwar public policy formulation have stimulated a re-examination of the relation of parties and legislatures to the chief executives and administration generally on the one hand, and to functional needs and popular participation in government on the other. The other area is that vast, multifactor, and fundamental one of substantive functional fields - of helath, public works, natural resources, defense, education, housing, economic regulation - is there a “field of administration” that can be abstracted from the services and functions to be performed? The fact is that administration is an aspect, a process, of every phase of government. It is the day-to-day activities of governments that can give us hints of those human needs, capacities, and practices from which we may be able to put together a tentative, working hypothesis of govt to set aside older ones.
The Big Questions in Public Management
Robert D. Behn (1995)
Any field of science is defined by the big questions it asks. Behn poses three big questions in PA: How can public managers break the micromanagement cycle - an excess of procedural rules, which prevents public agencies from producing results. How can public managers motivate people to work energetically and intelligently towards achieving public purpose? And, How can public managers measure the achievements of their agencies in ways that help to increase those achievements?
Big Questions Paper
Big questions in PA have been characterized as wicked problems, questions that require scientific rigor to answer, or questions that are significant or consequential to society (Agranoff & McGuire; Beh;, Kirlin). Kirlin makes a distinction from Behn, asserting that big questions in PA of a democracy are different than big questions of public management. Kirlin contends public management should be not be the starting point because this would result in giving public management primacy over public organizations. Setting big questions in the context of democracy, for Kirlin, sets forth the following criteria: achieving a democratic polity; rising to the societal level in terms of values important to public organizations; confronting the complexity of collective action; and, encouraging societal learning.
Big Questions Paper
Neumann criticizes Behn’s big questions because these questions pertain to practical application, therefore Behn commits an error of omission. Neumann contends PA scholars have failed to put forth theories and testable hypotheses because of “ignorance, fear, and hubris.” Neumann posits three questions of his own: What is the nature of an [public] organization? How is the public organization related to its environment? And, What does it mean to manage or administer the public organization? Neumann suggests the literature on nonlinear and chaotic systems theories are uniquely suited to examine the public organization. These systems are not additive, but they also cannot be disaggregated and ascribed to specific inputs.
Big Questions Paper
Callahan (2001) posits his own questions. 1. What links institutions and public organizations to facilitate cooperation needed for collective problem solving? 2. What are the linkages between organizational and institutional levels that promote democratic self-governance and constitutionally empowered and limited government? 3. What features of public management facilitate public trust in public organizations and institutions? 4. What promotes institutional adaptation through organizational learning in the public sector?
Big Questions Paper
Denhardt calls for big questions in PA educational curriculum. Specifically: 1. Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory or to practice? 2. Do we prepare students for their first jobs or for those to which they might aspire to later? 3. What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms for MPA courses and curricula? 4. What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators?
Big Questions Paper
Cooper (2004) links administrative ethics to the big questions agenda in PA and offers these questions: 1. What are the normative foundations for public administrative ethics? 2. How do American administrative ethical norms fit into a global context? 3. How can organizations be designed to be supportive of ethical conduct? 4. When should we treat people equally in order to treat them fairly, and when should we treat them unequally?
Big Questions Paper
Organizational Networks. Planning/organizing in the networked environment is assessed through specific management behaviors. Public managers must activate both participants and stakeholders, and frame the network by defining its norms, rules, and operating procedures. This leads to mobilization of the network and the network can synthesize the environment by creating environmental conditions conducive to productivity and participation. Group decision making processes (“groupware”) leads to collective action. Networking groups are more flexible and able to adapt to changing environments, and are able to avoid traditional bureaucratic hurdles. Accountability is different in networks since they are not hierarchically ordered. Cohesion is fostered by trust and and cooperation that leads to mutual dependency. Power may hinder networks through “vetos” or may catalyze networks. Measurement of network productivity is difficult, but social change may be one such way.
