Historical Development f Public Administration

Historical Development f Public Administration Since at least the 1970s, public administration has been characterized by an intellectual identity crisis, the various dimensions of which can be most compactly summarized as the legitimacy problem. Drawing from specific authors and schools of thought, outline the major dimensions of the legitimacy problem in public administration and describe the ways in which scholars and reformers have diagnosed and attempted to resolve this problem. Next, explain why the legitimacy problem matters. What is at stake? In considering this aspect of the question, you should think about how the issues presented via the legitimacy question affect the everyday practice of democratic government and the identity of public administration as a field of study. The debate over public administration identity and its legitimacy problem have been the focus for many years, and very likely to continue in foreseeable future. Previous scholars in public administration have examined this issue through a variety of approaches and perspectives. More specifically, the framing of the legitimacy issue and identity crisis in the discipline are all subjected to different scholars own focus and perception about the world. Perhaps the origin of the problem can be dated back to the establishment of US nation, when Founding Fathers drafted the constitution and design three branches of government with check and balance mechanism, they left out public administration, which others might considered that public administration is not a democratic production due to its hieratical structure, and therefore, does not have a legitimate place in government. In general, we can summarize these debates into following aspects: the accountability aspect, constitutional aspect , role of government aspect, and method of public administration employ to approach both academic study and practical matters. These issues affect how we conceptualize the practice of public administration as well as the conduct of research inquiry in the field. Historical development of public administration (accountability aspect) The earliest scholars who mention the identity of public administration are Wodrow Wilson and Goodnow, which also raise the issue of politic-administration dichotomy. During the early period of 20th century, the government system is considered to be corrupted with patronages. Therefore, Wilson argued that there should be a distinct separation between politics and administration, and Goodnow further conclude that politics is the representation of peoples will and administration is the execution of that will. They envision a bureaucratic system with hieratical structure and formal rules and regulations, and expert administrators will act faithfully according to the political system. This notion give rise to the debate between Friedrik and Finer, where on one hand, Finer believes in strict regulation that guard against administrators abuse the power and administrators should only focus on the technical issues, while Friedrik was arguing administrators are experts and should actively eng age in policymaking process. In addition, such dichotomy between politics and administration also revisited by scholars Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon. Waldo in his Administrative State, points out that the dichotomy is between facts and values, which is impossible and should not be separate in government, since public administration deals with peoples perception toward the state, and the study as well as practice of it should be guided by different normative values. Simon on the other hand, in Administrative Behavior, arguing while there is close relation between politics and administration, the purpose of public administration should focus on the most efficient way to carry out those values. Empirical aspects of legitimacy problem (Role of the government aspect) There are multiple aspects revolving legitimacy problem, from empirical and practical aspect, Nye et al in their book government and its discontented perform empirical test and found that US public has low trust in government and perceive it as inefficient and ineffective which poses the legitimacy problem for the government. Such negative perception toward government, according to David Harvey is stem from neoliberalism, especially against Keynes approach to expend the government during Roosevelt administration. Essentially, the debate over the role of government, or the tension between neoliberalism and Keynes approach, is about the identity of public administration. In other words, neoliberalism considers administrators as hindrance while Keynes supporter see positive value in them. This also introduced the era of New Public Management (NPM) reform. According to scholars Lynn and Kettl, NPM advocates for emphasis on efficiency and accountability to customers, and the market approach which include privatization of services, contract out government service to private and non-profit sectors. However, recent scholars like Stivers, King et al, Denhardt, Fung, Nabatchi, and Lucio, they see weakness in empathizing rolling back or hollowing out the state, and highlight the importance of people trust and connection with others, which government should play active role. (Constitution aspect) Another point of attention in legitimacy problem resides in the constitution, or federalist and anti-federalist debate. Constitution did not directly mention the creation of an administrative system but focus on separation of power, which produced the ambiguities of whether public administration is legitimate or not. Scholar Spicer believe the reason is because constitution regards people as not always rational and must rely on formal rules and structure, and government establishes its legitimacy through a federalist view. However, other scholars have different perspectives than Spicers. For example, McSwite argues that the creation of constitution is a compromise act, a conflict between the social elites that want to ensure their interests and lower members of society, in which the elites successfully create a centralized government that serve the interest of few. Therefore, McSwite was champion a more direct form of democracy system that can alleviate the legi timacy problem. On the other hand, scholar Rohr disagree with McSwites position and believes that constitution was actually intended for public administration to exist because constitution limits the legislature branchs ability to fully represent peoples will. In other words, Rohr suggest that the legitimacy problem occurs due to different interpretation of constitution, and the solution to government legitimacy problem is public administration since administrators are closer to the people compare to congress. Major schools of thoughts and scholars (method aspect) It is not surprising that same constitution could have several different meaning for different scholar, which correspond to scholar David Farmers argument that social reality is different for different groups because each scholars understanding and approach the field is limited by their own experience and knowledge. Coming from a post-modernist perspective, Farmer suggests that the study of public administration should approach through examining the characteristics underlying in current society. In other words, Farmers solution to the public administration identity crisis is to examine the reality through different perspective, which allows for a better understanding of reality. In particular, he points out the limitation of contemporary methods in the practice of public administration which include emphasis on scientific reasoning in the discipline and market-ism in practice. On one hand, scientific reasoning overlooks values and ethic dimension. On the other, market approach practi ce contradicts with governments goal of improving public wellness. Fundamentally, post-modernist perspective caution that reasons and rationality might hinder our understanding of the reality. Similar to Farmers post-modernist perspective, Stivers approach this science and enterprise method in public administration through feminism perspective. Stivers points out that current foundation for public administration was established on gender differences, where masculine attributes like science and rationality overcome the common attributes like trust and caring which considered to be feminine. In addition, Stivers believes that the legitimacy crisis is rooted in the nature of public administration, in which she argues that it is essentially about public trust and connection with each other, the attributes considered to be feminine. Yet public administration legitimacy was established through masculinity, therefore, which caused the decrease of interest in social wellness and seeks effic iency of individual interest. According to Stivers, the end result of that conflict leads to the legitimacy problem, therefore, Stivers believe the solution to the problem is that administrators should focus on improving the relationship and connection between individual among society, and enhance peoples notion of the public. Similarly, Stiverss notion corresponds to Waldos previous suggestion. Waldo strongly disagree with public administration as a value-neutral discipline that apply scientific method to pursuit efficiency, he argues that efficiency is essentially a value also, and to emphasize on efficiency along will sacrifices other normative values. The famous example Waldo use is that Germanys approach during World War II of ethnic cleansing is extremely efficient. Recent scholars like Denhardts also argue another weakness in scientific inquiry into public administration study is the risk that disregard as irrational in peoples behaviors that are not driven by rationality or self-interest. To summarize the method aspect of legitimacy problem, for practitioners, the identity crisis resides in their perception toward different governance approaches: in traditional governance, the method is command and control; in market governance, the method is self-interest; and in collaboration governance, the method is trust and negotiation. How administrators identify which approach should take depend on their beliefs and perception. On the other hand, the methodological aspect of identity crisis in the academic study of public administration revolving around whether public administration is an art that surround with different values and perspectives; or a science that focus on analyzing facts. Scholar Raaschelders propose his solution to identity crisis by acknowledging there are advantages in each of inquiry methods, and the solution to this problem is to put this debate aside and move on. Why legitimacy problem important? Legitimacy issue is a critical challenge facing public administration for both government and academic discipline. Not surprisingly, scholars who participated in the debate over identity crisis all have their own argument why legitimacy issue is a serious problem. For example, scholar Rohr points out that if administration was seen as illegitimate to the people, this will lead to social unrest. Also, Ostrom, in the book intellectual crisis in public administration mentioned that the incidents like Watergate could be attributed to the crisis of legitimacy. Aside from previous scholars concerns, in my opinion, for academic scholars studying in the field of public administration, if we fail to reach consensus on what is public administration and what elements constitute a legitimate knowledge inquiry, then, public administration might be under the risk of being a subfield to another discipline, or even fractionized into several. In addition, the identity crisis of what is public adminis tration can also complicated the intellectual crisis of what the study of public administration should focus. The failure of defining core identity and drawing a clear boundary of inquiry might jeopardize future development of public administration study. While my concerns might not be the same as what scholars like Raaschelders and Denhardt have argued, Raaschelders suggests that current debate over identity of public administration on its methodological approaches is backward, and somewhat meaningless due to the complexity nature of government rendering the true understanding of reality impossible, therefore, future scholars should just move beyond this debate and consider public administration discipline as an interdisciplinary study like a harbor anchoring multi-face studies. Denhardt on the other hand, argues that current emphasis on scientific method might limit the room for other considerations. Therefore, the study of public administration should include other perspectives. These are valid arguments, however, I believe how scholars perceive their studies and how the field defines itself will significantly shape future study and the methods. Yet in the education of public administration, which deals with the training of future administrators, and the curriculum design is associated with what capacity scholars believe administrators should have. My argument for the importance of legitimacy problem is that while public administration discipline includes various schools of thought with their own advantages and weakness, if the academic field is so complex and scholars cannot draw a boundary to the knowledge, then the accumulation of knowledge created since the inception of public administration, combine with extreme diverse scholars perception and methodology, I fear that the wide range content cover in current education system might exceed students capacity to comprehend. In more simplistic terms, my argument is that there is no doubt that every schools o f thought is valuable and impossible to decide which one is outside the realm of public administration, however, the sheer amount of public administration knowledge still requires and challenges this discipline to triage its body of scholars work, so that the training and cultivation of future administrator is possible. Otherwise, over time, this problem of drawing definition might translates to future government administrators and the public struggling with the different experience and understanding; perceptions of governments role; and their approach to formulate and implement policy.

Political Theory in International Relations Essay

World politics is a very broad and challenging topic to discuss. Indeed it is so hard to understand the facts about world politics. I suppose that the study of world politics itself requires indepth and thorough research on the topic. When facts are put the way they are, world politics becomes even more complicated. Since politics is the process by which people make decisions, these decisions can vary depending on the environment, culture and the political history and backgrounds. The fact that politics depend on an individual thinking makes the matter more complicated. Different people may have different ideologies has to the organization of politics in their country but all these have to be harmonized so that we have a central government which is organised. (Alan, 1997 pp. 190) Theory is key in understanding world politics because it is the basis with which a particular group will adopt a particular political pattern. Democratic kinds of governments have had this type of system because of theories. A theory is an abstract preposition about an object, person or situation. According to some political systems they is an open system whereby the state supposes that the people will participate in free politics. Theory has seen the division of politics into right wing and left wing politics. Though this theory has been in use for a along time, the use has been used by nation to nation differently. In essence the meaning of right wing politics is the type of political organization which values tradition and capitalism i. e. they regard most social inequality as a result of natural inequalities. The left wing theory of politics values egalitarianism i. e. they try to eradicate social inequality in their systems. Some ideologies tend to combine both left wing and right wing politics coming up with views held by liberals, socialists and conservatives. These are normally referred to as the Christian democracy. (Waltz, 1959 pp. 362) Theorists have come up with several theories to explain the world politics and if we are to understand well these theories we need to know what they use as a gauge. The theorists belief that inorder to look at the actors who interact in politics we must look at the system with which they interact. It’s important to look at the setup of political structures and see the fundamental characteristics which can translate to the world politics. The organisation of the world politics is so much seen in the setup of the domestic politics. Macroeconomic theory thinking theory ought to explain how politics should e like. It is said that nations in a political system are like firms in a domestic economy. Every state has a core purpose of coexistence: to survive despite the odds. If a state is to survive therefore their is need for an organised political system. (Elshtain, 1995. pp 570) The state has to form a structure which is organised and ordered and this is evident from its differentiation and specification of units. The units should be organised in a way that they harmonise each other, theorists explain that their is need for a comprehensive setup of a theory so that the politics of the world will be in harmony. Conclusion The topic of world politics is very important yet very controversial. Today there is no accepted formula or way of rule of the politics. Theory has developed from time immemorial and is very significant in understanding the politics of the world. Variations, however still arise as to whether the stability of the nations contribute to the world politics. Do countries which are termed stable have a stand in politics; do they influence the world politics? Are states like the US of significance to the world politics? And are the developing and the less developed countries of influence to the world politics? All these are questions which are so important in understanding the world politics and if we have to harmonize the meaning of world politics, then we need to stick to the theories which are drawn from several parts of the divide. Reference: Elshtain, J. (1995) International politics and political theory, Cambridge: Polity. Pp. 567-589 Alan, C. (1997) Theory and politics in world politics, Journal vol. 41, pp. 187-216 Waltz, K. (1959) Man, the state and war, New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 354-367

Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, And Mesopotamia - 1337 Words

In ancient Egypt, Rome and Mesopotamia the connections that the people had with their rulers stemmed from their belief that their ruler had a close connection with their God’s. Because of the vast role that religion played in their lives it was important to show their admiration and appreciation for these royal beings. From a psychological standpoint, through their style, significance, and idealization, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Rome’s depictions of royalty within their artworks functioned as the best way to encompass the impression, and supremacy that a ruler held over their people. For many of the people of Mesopotamia the most important part of their society was their religion and their royalty. They believed that they held close relationships with their Gods and they believed that their rulers were the closest possible connection that they had to their Gods. An ancient Sumerian proverb states â€Å"Man is the shadow of God, but the king is God’s reflection† (Alexander). The king was believed to be personally chosen by the gods and acting in their will however they were not considered to be god like. The king’s responsibilities included participating in religious rituals, managing the state during peace and war-time, and creating laws. The Mesopotamians believed that in order to protect themselves they needed to gain more resources and people and this was done by expanding and conquering surrounding areas. Another role of the king was to issue codes of law with the ideal that heShow MoreRelatedEssay On Ancient Egypt And Mesopotamia867 Words   |  4 Pages Though most ancient civilizations settled on rivers, each one tended to be different due to the characteristics of their nearby rivers. Two civilizations that differed significantly from one another were the civilizations of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Not only are the rivers of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt seemingly perfect to compare, but the two civilizations also existed around the same time as one another; meaning that the overall impact of their respective rivers on their societies canRead MoreAncient Mesopota mia And Egypt Different1029 Words   |  5 PagesAncient Mesopotamia Egypt; Different The Same Long before you and I today were societies in formation. These fascinating societies took place in Mesopotamia and Egypt in ancient times. Many factors contributed to the similarities and the differences that occurred between the two; including geography, religion, and social structures. A glance at the these factors will give us a better understanding of a couple of the first societies or civilizations that occurred before people today. In orderRead MoreMusic In Ancient Mesopotamia And Egypt1528 Words   |  7 PagesIn ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, much like modern human, there was a passion for music. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians incorporated music into most festivities, celebrations, and even funerals. That being said, there was a vast number of different instruments that were used such as; idiophones, membranophones, aerophones, and chordophones. This showed that even in one of the world’s earliest civilization, music played an important role in people’s everyday lives. One of the most known instrumentRead MoreSimilarities Between Ancient Egypt And Mesopotamia951 Words   |  4 Pageshistory are Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, because of the different geography, exposure to outside invasion, influence, and beliefs, Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia came to not only contrast in political and social structures but also share similarities in them as well. When it came to the development of Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations politics played a prominent role in structuring the very foundation of each respective civilization. For instance, when it came to Ancient EgyptRead MoreSimilarities Between Ancient Egypt And Mesopotamia1131 Words   |  5 Pages Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are a valuable area of historical research. This essay will focus on the differences and similarities in these societies economic, political, and cultural lives. As well as the circumstances the people of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia faced. Agriculture Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian agricultural lives were very different due to their geographical situations, differences in technology, and developments. Only a small area of Egyptian land (the Delta and NileRead More The History of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt Essay1323 Words   |  6 PagesThe History of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt are both cradles of civilization. Both contributed greatly to human development through their achievements, failures, peoples, scientific accomplishments, philosophies, religions, and contributions. Mesopotamia is a rich flat plain created by deposits from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. At the southern end of this plain developed the first recognizable civilization, in the area known as Sumer. In 3000Read MoreAncient Egypt vs. Mesopotamia - Comparative Essay988 Words   |  4 PagesAncient Egypt and Mesopotamia Egypt and Mesopotamia, although similar, are different as a result of one major natural resource: a river. Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were an agricultural based society that believed in the existence of many deities; however, they differed in the aspect of how they evolved as an agricultural society and whether they feared or praised their gods. Mesopotamia, also known as the Fertile Crescent, was located inside the Euphrates and Tigris River. The fertile landRead MoreSimilarities And Differences Between Ancient Egypt And Mesopotamia1125 Words   |  5 Pagesago there existed two main civilizations: Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, and Ancient Egypt along the Nile. Even though Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt were both advanced civilizations they had many differences such as their government, religion, as well as their trade and society. Mesopotamian culture thought negatively about its gods, and had conflict, cultural diffusion, and a decentralized government while Ancient Egypt thought highly of its gods, had a centralizedRead MoreEssay on Egypt, Mesopotamia and Ancient Greek Civilizations1810 Words   |  8 PagesMichael Jones 10/5/2012 Cabrera Egypt, Mesopotamia and Ancient Greek Civilizations The Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamia, and Greeks were some of the oldest complex societies, although similar in many aspects. Mesopotamia is located in the Fertile Crescent, land in and between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers usually known as modern day Iraq and Eastern Syria.(24) In Egypt, the Nile River creates a fertile valley which is rich in nutrients and essential to their survival. The Nile flows fromRead MoreUrbanization Of Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt And The Indus Valley1785 Words   |  8 PagesThroughout ancient history, we have seen various groups of civilization to adept different forms of urbanization near river valleys. These cities include the regions near Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus valley. Even though their lifestyle might have revolved the valley as a main source of development, their cultures and beliefs differed greatly from each other. Through the archeological discoveries, we can infer some details into the lives of the people who originated in the ci ties of Mesopotamia. The

Gullivers Travels by Jonathan Swift Review

There are few great satirists who manage to judge their work so finely that it can be considered both a rip-roaring, fantastical adventure story suitable for children and adults alike, as well as a searing attack on the nature of society. In his Gullivers Travels, Jonathon Swift has done precisely that and has bestowed upon us one of the great works of English literature in the process. A tale recognized far more widely than it is read, the story of Gulliver--a traveler who is, in turns, a giant, a tiny figure, a king and an idiot--is both excellent fun, as well as thoughtful, witty and wise. The First Voyage The travels that are referenced in Swifts title are four in number and always begin with an unfortunate incident that leaves Gulliver shipwrecked, abandoned, or otherwise lost at sea. On his first misadventure, he is washed up on the shores of Lilliput and awakes to find himself tied down by a hundred tiny threads. He soon realizes that he is a captive in a land of tiny people; compared to them, he is a giant. The people soon put Gulliver to work--first of a manual kind, then in a war with neighboring people over the way that eggs should be properly cracked. The people turn against him when Gulliver puts out a fire in the palace by urinating on it. The Second Gulliver manages to return home, but he soon wishes to get out into the world again. This time, he finds himself in a land where he is tiny compared to the giants who live there. After numerous close encounters with the large animals that populate the land, and achieving some fame for his tiny size, he escapes Brobdingnag--a place he disliked because of the boorishness of its people--when a bird picks up the cage in which he resides and drops it into the sea. The Third On his third voyage, Gulliver pass through a number of lands, including one whose people literally have their head in the clouds. Their land floats above the normal Earth. These people are refined intellectuals who spend their time in esoteric and entirely pointless pursuits while others live below--as slaves. The Fourth Gullivers final voyage takes him to a near utopia. He finds himself in a land of talking horses, called the Houyhnhnms, who rule over a world of brutish humans, called Yahoos. The society is beautiful--without violence, pettiness or greed. All the horses live together in a cohesive social unit. Gulliver feels that he is a stupid outsider. The Houyhnhnms cannot accept him because of his human form, and he escapes in a canoe. When he returns home, he is upset by the sordid nature of the human world and wishes he were back with the more enlightened horses that he left. Beyond the Adventure Brilliant and insightful, Gullivers Travels, is not simply a fun adventure story. Rather, each of the worlds that Gulliver visits exhibits the features of the world in which Swift lived--often delivered in a caricatured, inflated form that is the stock in trade of a satirist. Courtiers are given influence with a king dependent on how well they are at jumping through hoops: a sideswipe at politics. Thinkers have their head in the clouds while others suffer: a representation of intellectuals of Swifts time. And then, most tellingly, humanitys self-regard is punctured when we are portrayed as the beastly and incoherent Yahoos. Gullivers brand of misanthropy is aimed at the lampooning and improvement of society through a form that is far removed from any kind of serious political or social tract. Swift has a deft eye for an excellent image, and a uproarious, often bawdy sense of humor. In writing Gullivers Travels, he has created a legend which endures up to our times and beyond.