Political Science: The State of the Discipline II

By Ada W. Finifter | Go to book overview

16
Public Administration: The State of the Field

Donald F. Kettl

The scholarly study of bureaucracy and the administrative process has long been a contentious business. Scholars, in fact, have pointedly chosen to label the field in different ways. For traditionalists, the term of choice is "public administration." Many political scientists prefer "bureaucracy" instead, while others embrace "the new economics of organization" or "the new institutionalism." "Implementation" has its followers, while some scholars in public policy schools pursue "public management" and explicitly separate themselves from political science, in both traditional and new forms. Scholars from these different approaches rarely cite each other. They frequently suggest, at least implicitly, that those from other approaches have little to contribute to the really important questions. Of course, they rarely agree on what those important questions are. If anything characterizes the study of public administration, it is fragmentation.

Important questions in public administration, not surprisingly, have long revolved around problems of boundary-drawing. Woodrow Wilson, in "The Study of Administration" ( 1887), drew public administration's most famous boundary in stipulating a distinction between politics and administration. The Wilsonian politics- administration dichotomy has long dominated the way scholars have attacked the basic questions in the field. It has also directed the way they have answered them. It has allowed some public administrationists to distance themselves from indelicate political battles, and political scientists to immunize themselves against administrative complexity. The dichotomy ultimately has led many within political science to abandon the unruly child of public administration. It has also played into the cause of elected officials who were eager to use "administration" to pursue political ends and to blame administrators for political failures. The politics-administration dichotomy has fueled the struggle but not enhanced the debate. The challenge of drawing these boundary lines led to often difficult battles -- indeed, estrangement -- between public administration and political science.

The different approaches, as a result, are struggling for the very soul of the field. Some of the conflict comes from fundamental disagreement over defining the basic questions. Some comes from stark differences in method, which especially distances newer, mathematically based approaches from older, descriptive approaches. Most fundamentally, however, the controversy flows from three fundamental problems.

First, different approaches to the study of administration usually come from one of two conflicting traditions in American politics -- and each tradition leads to a very different perspective on the role of administration in American democracy (see Table 1). Some students of administration come to the subject with a fundamentally Hamiltonian bent. Like Alexander Hamilton, they seek a vigorous state vested with a strong administrative apparatus. They see the task of administration as carrying out publicly defined goals effectively; they see an energetic government doing good. Other students of administration, however, are fundamentally Madisonians. Like James Madison, they are wary about too much government action, and they are cautious about the concentration of governmental -- especially administrative -- power. Like Madison, they see in a delicate balance of power the best protection against tyranny. The competition of political interests, in their view, lessens the risk that bureaucracy can abuse individual liberty. 1

Second, different scholars have pursued very different ends in their study of administration. Some scholars have sought to build a body of theory that would explain the role administration plays in society. Their central goal has been to establish the study of administration firmly among the respected social sciences. Other scholars have recognized the importance of theory- building, but for them theory was just a step toward a more important goal: understanding the administrative process so that its functions can be improved. The distinction is based on the traditional theory-practice issue, but it is more than that. The two approaches differ sharply in how important finding practical solutions to administrative problems ought to be. They also differ on how important these problems ought to be in defining the central questions for the study of administration. Some

-407-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this book

This book has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this book

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Political Science: The State of the Discipline II
Table of contents

Table of contents

  • Title Page i
  • Table of Contents v
  • Preface vii
  • Theory and Method 1
  • 1: Texts and Canons: The Status of the "Great Books" in Political Theory 3
  • Conclusion 21
  • Notes 22
  • Bibliography 23
  • 2: Political Theory in the 1980s: Perplexity Amidst Diversity 27
  • Notes 43
  • Bibliography 43
  • Additional Bibliography 46
  • 3: Feminist Challenges to Political Science 55
  • Notes 72
  • Bibliography 73
  • 4: Formal Rational Choice Theory: A Cumulative Science of Politics 77
  • Concluding Comments 97
  • Notes 98
  • Bibliography 101
  • 5: The Comparative Method 105
  • Conclusion 116
  • Notes 117
  • Bibliography 117
  • 6: The State of Quantitative Political Methodology 121
  • Conclusion 148
  • Notes 148
  • Bibliography 150
  • Political Processes and Individual Political Behavior 161
  • 7: Comparative Political Parties: Research and Theory 163
  • Conclusion 183
  • Notes 184
  • Bibliography 185
  • 8: The Not So Simple Act of Voting 193
  • Notes 213
  • Bibliography 214
  • 9: The New Look in Public Opinion Research 219
  • Notes 240
  • Bibliography 240
  • 10: Expanding Disciplinary Boundaries 247
  • Conclusion 269
  • Notes 271
  • Bibliography 271
  • 11: Citizens, Contexts, and Politics 281
  • Conclusion: Putting the Puzzle Back Together 299
  • Bibliography 300
  • 12: Political Communication 305
  • Conclusions 323
  • Bibliography 324
  • Political Institutions of the State 333
  • 13: Legislatures: Individual Purpose and Institutional Performance 335
  • Conclusions: Behavior, Institutions, and Theory 354
  • Notes 357
  • Bibliography 357
  • 14: Public Law and Judicial Politics 365
  • 15: Political Executives and Their Officials 383
  • Conclusion 402
  • Bibliography 403
  • 16: Public Administration: The State of the Field 407
  • Notes 423
  • Bibliography 424
  • Nations and Their Relationships 429
  • 17: Comparative Politics 431
  • Conclusion 443
  • Notes 444
  • Bibliography 446
  • 18: Global Political Economy 451
  • Conclusion 474
  • Notes 476
  • Bibliography 477
  • Conclusions 483
  • Conclusions 503
  • Notes 504
  • Bibliography 505
  • Appendix 511
  • Contributors 513
  • Index of Cited Authors 517
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen
/ 538

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.