Editing Public administration (section)

===In the United States===
[[File:Woodrow Wilson (Nobel 1919).jpg|thumb|[[Woodrow Wilson]]]]
The father of public administration in the US is considered to be [[Woodrow Wilson]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stivers |first1=C |last2=McDonald |first2=B. D. |year=2023 |title=Teaching Public Administration Historically |journal=Journal of Public Affairs Education |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=275–279 |doi=10.1080/15236803.2023.2205805}}</ref> He first formally recognized public administration in an 1887 article entitled "[[The Study of Administration]]". The future president wrote that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or energy."<ref name="Wilson">Wilson, Woodrow. June 1887. "[[The Study of Administration]]", ''Political Science Quarterly'' 2.</ref>

By the 1920s, scholars of public administration had responded to Wilson's solicitation and textbooks in this field were introduced. Distinguished scholars of that period include [[Luther Gulick (social scientist)|Luther Gulick]], [[Lyndall Urwick]], [[Henri Fayol]], and [[Frederick Winslow Taylor|Frederick Taylor]]. Taylor argued in ''[[The Principles of Scientific Management]],'' that scientific analysis would lead to the discovery of the "[a] best way" to do things or carry out an operation. Taylor's technique was introduced to private industrialists, and later to various government organizations.<ref name="JeongChun">{{cite book |first1=Jeong Chun Hai |last1=Ibrahim |first2=Nor Fadzlina |last2=Nawi |year=2007 |title=Principles of Public Administration: An Introduction |location=Kuala Lumpur |publisher=Karisma Publications |isbn=978-983-195-253-5}}</ref>

The [[American Society for Public Administration]] (ASPA), the leading professional group for public administration was founded in 1939. ASPA sponsors the journal [[Public Administration Review]], which was founded in 1940.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/ASPAgeneral.cfm |title=Our Web Site Has Moved! |publisher=Aspanet.org |access-date=2014-08-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111203193218/http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/ASPAgeneral.cfm |archive-date=2011-12-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The [[National Academy of Public Administration (United States)|National Academy of Public Administration]] (NAPA) is a United States nonprofit, non-governmental, non-partisan organization. As a [[Congressional charter|congressionally chartered]] [[National academy|national academy]], its mission is to produce independent research and studies that advance the field of public administration and facilitate the development, adoption, and implementation of solutions to government's most significant challenges.<ref>''[https://napawash.org/who-we-are Who We Are]'' <i>National Academy of Public Administration</i> Retrieved March 12, 2025.</ref>

==== 1940s ====
[[File:Luther Gulick (social scientist).jpg|thumb|left|[[Luther Gulick (social scientist)|Luther Gulick]] (1892–1993) was an expert on public administration.]]

The separation of politics and administration advocated by Wilson continues to play a significant role in public administration today. However, the dominance of this dichotomy was challenged by second-generation scholars, beginning in the 1940s. [[Luther Gulick (social scientist)|Luther Gulick]]'s fact-value dichotomy was a key contender for Wilson's proposed [[politics-administration dichotomy]]. In place of Wilson's first generation split, Gulick advocated a "seamless web of discretion and interaction".<ref>Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. p. 80</ref>

Luther Gulick and [[Lyndall Urwick]] are two second-generation scholars. Gulick, Urwick, and the new generation of administrators built on the work of contemporary behavioral, administrative, and organizational scholars including [[Henri Fayol]], [[Fredrick Winslow Taylor]], Paul Appleby, Frank Goodnow, and Willam Willoughby. The new generation of organizational theories no longer relied upon logical assumptions and generalizations about human nature like classical and enlightened theorists.

Gulick developed a comprehensive, generic theory of organization that emphasized the scientific method, efficiency, professionalism, structural reform, and executive control. Gulick summarized the duties of administrators with an acronym; [[POSDCORB]], which stands for planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Fayol developed a systematic, 14-point treatment of private management. Second-generation theorists drew upon private management practices for administrative sciences. A single, generic management theory bleeding the borders between the private and the public sector was thought to be possible. With the general theory, the administrative theory could be focused on governmental organizations. The mid-1940s theorists challenged Wilson and Gulick. The politics-administration dichotomy remained the center of criticism.

==== 1950s - 1970s ====
During the 1950s, the United States experienced prolonged prosperity and solidified its place as a world leader. Public Administration experienced a kind of heyday due to the successful war effort and successful post-war reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan. Government was popular as was President Eisenhower. In the 1960s and 1970s, the government itself came under fire as ineffective, inefficient, and largely a wasted effort. The costly [[Vietnam War|American intervention in Vietnam]] along with domestic scandals including the bugging of Democratic Party headquarters (the 1974 [[Watergate]] scandal) are two examples of self-destructive government behavior that alienated citizens.
[[File:B-52D(061127-F-1234S-017).jpg|thumb|right|The costly [[Vietnam War]] alienated U.S. citizens from their government. Pictured is [[Operation Arc Light]], a U.S. bombing operation.]]

There was a call by citizens for efficient administration to replace ineffective, wasteful bureaucracy. Public administration would have to distance itself from politics to answer this call and remain effective. Elected officials supported these reforms. The [[Hoover Commission]], chaired by University of Chicago professor [[Louis Brownlow]], examines the reorganization of government. Brownlow subsequently founded the Public Administration Service (PAS) at the university, an organization that provided consulting services to all levels of government until the 1970s.

Concurrently, after [[World War II]], the entire concept of public administration expanded to include policymaking and analysis, thus the study of "administrative policy making and analysis" was introduced and enhanced into the government decision-making bodies. Later on, the human factor became a predominant concern and emphasis in the study of public administration. This period witnessed the development and inclusion of other social sciences knowledge, predominantly, psychology, anthropology, and sociology, into the study of public administration (Jeong, 2007).<ref name="JeongChun" /> Henceforth, the emergence of scholars such as [[Fritz Morstein Marx]], with his book ''The Elements of Public Administration'' (1946), Paul H. Appleby ''Policy and Administration'' (1952), Frank Marini 'Towards a New Public Administration' (1971), and others that have contributed positively in these endeavors.

Stimulated by events during the 1960s such as an active civil rights movement, the Vietnam War and war protests, assassinations of a president and civil rights leaders, and an active women's movement, public administration changed course somewhat. Landmark legislation such as the [[Equal Pay Act of 1963]] and the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] also gave public administrators new responsibilities. These events were manifest in the public administration profession through the new public administration movement. "Under the stimulating patronage of Dwight Waldo, some of the best of the younger generation of scholars challenged the doctrine they had received".<ref>Schick, A. (1975). The trauma of politics: public administration in the sixties. In Mosher, F. (Ed.),
American Public Administration: Past, Present, Future, pp. 142–80. University of Alabama Press (p. 161).</ref> These new scholars demanded more policy-oriented public administrators that incorporated "four themes: relevance, values, equity, and change".<ref>Schick, A. (1975). The trauma of politics: public administration in the sixties. In Mosher, F. (Ed.),
American Public Administration: Past, Present, Future, pp. 142–80. University of Alabama Press. (p. 162).</ref> All of these themes would encourage more participation among women and minorities.<ref name="Shields, P. M. 2022 pp.1 - 19">Shields, P. M., & Elias, N. M. (2022). Introduction to the Handbook on Gender and Public Administration. In Shields, P. and Elias, N. (Eds.)Handbook on Gender and Public Administration. pp.1 – 19. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781789904727/9781789904727.00008.xml</ref>
Stimulated by the events of the '60s, the 1970s brought significant change to the American Society for Public Administration. Racial and ethnic minorities and women members organized to seek greater participation.<ref>Foye-Cox, N. (2006). Women in public administration: breaking new ground. In Felbinger, C. and
Haynes, W. (Eds.), Profiles of Outstanding Women in Public Administration, pp. 7–42. American
Society for Public Administration.</ref> Eventually, the Conference on Minority Public Administrators and the Section for Women in Public Administration were established.<ref>Rubin, M. (1990). Women in ASPA: the fifty-year climb toward equality. Public Administration Review,
50(2), 277–87.</ref>

==== 1980s - 1990s ====
In the late 1980s, yet another generation of public administration theorists began to displace the last. The new theory, which came to be called [[New Public Management]], was proposed by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book ''Reinventing Government''.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Kamensky  | first = John M. | title = Role of the "Reinventing Government" movement in Federal management reform | journal = [[Public Administration Review]] | volume = 56 | issue = 3 | pages = 247–55 | doi = 10.2307/976448 | jstor = 976448  | date = May–June 1996 }}</ref> The new model advocated the use of [[private sector]]-style models, organizational ideas and values to improve the efficiency and service-orientation of the public sector. During the [[Clinton Administration]] (1993–2001), Vice President [[Al Gore]] adopted and reformed federal agencies using NPM approaches. In the 1990s, new public management became prevalent throughout the bureaucracies of the US, the UK, and to a lesser extent, in Canada. The original public management theories have roots attributed to policy analysis, according to [[Richard Elmore]] in his 1986 article published in the "[[Journal of Policy Analysis and Management]]".<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Elmore | first = Richard F. | author-link = Richard Elmore | title = Graduate education in public management: working the seams of government | journal = [[Journal of Policy Analysis and Management]] | volume = 6 | issue = 1 | pages = 69–83 | doi = 10.1002/pam.4050060107 | date = 1986 }}</ref>

Some modern authors define NPM as a combination of splitting large bureaucracies into smaller, more fragmented agencies, encouraging competition between different public agencies, and encouraging competition between public agencies and private firms and using economic incentives lines (e.g., performance pay for senior executives or user-pay models).<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Margetts | first1 = Helen | last2 = Dunleavy | first2 = Patrick | last3 = Bastow | first3 = Simon | last4 = Tinkler | first4 = Jane | author-link1 = Helen Margetts | author-link2 = Patrick Dunleavy | title = New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance | journal = [[Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory]] | volume = 16 | issue = 3 | pages = 467–94 | doi = 10.1093/jopart/mui057 | date = July 2006 | doi-access = free }}</ref> NPM treats individuals as "customers" or "clients" (in the private sector sense), rather than as citizens.<ref>[[Diane Stone]], (2008) "Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks", ''Journal of Policy Sciences''.</ref>

Some critics<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Thomas |first=John Clayton |date=November–December 2013 |title=Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42003125 |journal=Public Administration Review |volume=73 |issue=6 |pages=786–796 |doi=10.1111/puar.12109 |jstor=42003125 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mathiasen |first=David |date=31 July 2000 |title=The new public management and its critics |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096749400874334 |journal=Elsevier |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=90–111 |doi=10.1016/S1096-7494(00)87433-4 |via=Science Direct|url-access=subscription }}</ref> argue that the New Public Management concept of treating people as "customers" rather than "citizens" is an inappropriate borrowing from the private sector model, because businesses see customers as a means to an end (profit), rather than as the proprietors of government (the owners), opposed to merely the customers of a business (the patrons). In New Public Management, people are viewed as economic units not as democratic participants which is the hazard of linking an MBA (business administration, economic and employer-based model) too closely with the public administration (governmental, [[Public good (economics)|public good]]) sector. Nevertheless, the NPM model (one of four described by Elmore in 1986, including the "generic model") is still widely accepted at multiple levels of government (e.g., municipal, state/province, and federal) and in many OECD nations.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}}

In the late 1990s, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed a new public services model in response to the dominance of NPM.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Denhardt | first1 = Robert B. | last2 = Vinzant Denhardt | first2 = Janet | title = The new public service: serving rather than steering | journal = [[Public Administration Review]] | volume = 60 | issue = 6 | pages = 549–59 | doi = 10.1111/0033-3352.00117 | jstor = 977437 | date = November–December 2000 }}</ref> A successor to NPM is [[digital era governance]], focusing on themes of reintegrating government responsibilities, needs-based holism (executing duties in cursive ways), and digitalization (exploiting the transformational capabilities of modern IT and digital storage).

One example of the deployment of DEG is [[Open Forum (Australia)|openforum.com.au]], an Australian not-for-profit e-Democracy project that invites politicians, senior public servants, academics, business people, and other key stakeholders to engage in high-level policy debate. Another example is Brunei's Information Department in deploying Social Media technology to improve its Digital Governance process.<ref name=":3">Omar, A. M. (2020). Digital Era Governance and Social Media: The Case of Information Department Brunei. In Employing Recent Technologies for Improved Digital Governance (pp. 19–35). IGI Global.</ref> The book chapter work concludes that digital dividends can be secured through the effective application of Social Media within the framework of Digital Era Governance.<ref name=":3" />

Another new public service model is what has been called New Public Governance, an approach that includes a centralization of power; an increased number, role, and influence of partisan-political staff; personal-politicization of appointments to the senior public service; and, the assumption that the public service is promiscuously partisan for the government of the day.<ref>Aucoin, Peter (2008). "New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping with the New Political Governance in Canada", Conference on ''New Public Management and the Quality of Government'', SOG and the Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 13–15 November 2008, p. 14.</ref>

In the mid-1980s, the goal of community programs in the United States was often represented by terms such as independent living, [[community integration]], inclusion, community participation, [[deinstitutionalization]], and civil rights. Thus, the same public policy (and public administration) was to apply to all citizens, inclusive of disability. However, by the 1990s, categorical state systems were strengthened in the United States (Racino, in press, 2014), and efforts were made to introduce more disability content into the public policy curricula<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Elmore | first1 = Richard F. | last2 = Watson | first2 = Sara | last3 = Pfeiffer | first3 = David | author-link1 = Richard Elmore | title = A case for including disability policy issues in public policy curricula | journal = Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Curriculum and Case Notes) | volume = 11 | issue = 1 | pages = 167–73 | doi = 10.2307/3325146 | date = 1992 | jstor = 3325146 }}</ref> with disability public policy (and administration) distinct fields in their own right.<ref>{{Citation | last = Zola | first = Irving K. | author-link = Irving Zola | contribution = Introduction | editor-last1 = Brown | editor-first1 = Susan T. | title = An Independent Living Approach to Disability Policy Studies | publisher = Research and Training Center on Public Policy And Independent Living, World Institute on Disability | location = Berkeley, CA | year = 1993 | oclc = 36404707 | postscript = .}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Racino | first = Julie A. | title = Public administration and disability community services administration in the US | publisher = CRC Press | location = Boca Raton | year = 2015 | isbn = 9781466579828 }}</ref> Behaviorists have also dominated "intervention practice" (generally not the province of public administration) in recent years, believing that they are in opposition to generic public policy (termed [[ecological systems theory]], of the late [[Urie Bronfenbrenner]]).

Increasingly, public policy academics and practitioners have utilized the theoretical concepts of [[political economy]] to explain policy outcomes such as the success or failure of reform efforts or the persistence of suboptimal outcomes.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Corduneanu-Huci |first1=Cristina |first2=Alexander |last2=Hamilton |first3=Issel |last3=Masses Ferrer |year=2012 |title=Understanding Policy Change: How to Apply Political Economy Concepts in Practice |publisher=The World Bank |location=Washington DC. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oKShuAAACAAJ }}{{Dead link|date=September 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

==== Women's civic clubs and the Settlement movement ====
Contemporary scholars <ref name="elgaronline.com">Shields, P. M., & Elias, N. M. (2022). Introduction to the ''Handbook on Gender and Public Administration''. In Shields, P. and Elias, N. (Eds.)''Handbook on Gender and Public Administration''. pp.1 – 19. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781789904727/9781789904727.00008.xml</ref><ref name="Stivers, C. 2000">Stivers, C. (2000). ''Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era''. University Press of Kansas.</ref><ref>Burnier, D. (2008). Erased history: Frances Perkins and the emergence of care-centered public administration. ''Administration & Society'', 40(4), 403–22.</ref><ref>Burnier, D. (2022). The long road of administrative memory: Jane Addams, Frances Perkins and care-centered administration. In Shields, P. and Elias, N. (Eds.),''Handbook on Gender and Public Administration''. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar Publishing.</ref> are reclaiming a companion public administration origin story that includes the contributions of women. This has become known as the "alternative" or "settlement" model of public administration.<ref name="elgaronline.com" /> During the 19th century upper-class women in the United States and Europe organized voluntary associations that worked to mitigate the excesses of urbanization and industrialization in their towns. Eventually, these voluntary associations became networks that were able to spearhead changes to policy and administration.<ref>Skocpol, T. (1992). ''Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States''. Harvard University Press.</ref><ref>Hunt, K. (2006). Women as citizens: changing the polity. In Simonton, D. (Ed.), ''The Routledge History of Women in Europe Since 1700'', pp. 216–58. Routledge.</ref> These women's civic clubs worked to make cities and workplaces safer (cleaner streets, water, sewage, and workplace. As well as workplace regulation) and more suited to the needs of their children (playgrounds, libraries, juvenile courts, child labor laws). These were administrative and policy spaces ignored by their fathers and husbands. The work of these clubs was amplified by newly organized non-profit organizations ([[Settlement houses|Settlement Houses]]), usually situated in industrialized city slums filled with immigrants.<ref name="Stivers, C. 2000" /><ref name="Shields, P. 2022">Shields, P. (2022). The origins of the settlement model of public administration. In Shields, P. and Elias, N. (Eds.), ''Handbook on Gender and Public Administration''. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar Publishing.</ref><ref>Shields, P. (2017). Jane Addams: pioneer in American sociology, social work and public administration. In Shields, P. (Ed.), ''Jane Addams: Progressive Pioneer of Peace, Philosophy, Sociology, Social Work and Public Administration'', pp. 43–67. Springer.</ref><ref name="doi.org">Burnier, D. (2021). Hiding in plain sight: recovering public administration's lost Legacy of social justice, ''Administrative Theory & Praxis'', https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2021.1891796.</ref>

Reforms that emerged from the [[New Deal]] (e.g., income for the old, unemployment insurance, aid for dependent children and the disabled, child labor prohibitions and limits on hours worked, etc.) were supported by leaders of the Settlement movement. Richard Stillman <ref>Stillman II, R. (1998). Creating the American State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made. University of Alabama Press p. 82.</ref> credits [[Jane Addams]], a key leader of the Settlement movement and a pioneer of public administration with "conceiving and spawning" the modern welfare state. The accomplishments of the Settlement movement and their conception of public administration were ignored in the early literature of public administration. The alternative model of Public Administration was invisible or buried for about 100 years until Camilla Stivers published ''Bureau Men and Settlement Women'' in 2000.<ref name="ReferenceB">Stivers, C. (2000). Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era. University Press of Kansas.</ref>

Settlement workers explicitly fought for social justice as they campaigned for reform.<ref name="doi.org" /> They sought policy changes that would improve the lives of immigrants, women, children, sick, old, and impoverished people. Both municipal housekeeping and industrial citizenship applied an ethic of care informed by the feminine experience of policy and administration.<ref>. Burnier, D. (2022). The long road of administrative memory: Jane Addams, Frances Perkins and care-centered administration. In Shields, P. and Elias, N. (Eds.), Handbook on Gender and Public Administration. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar Publishing.</ref> While they saw the relevance of the traditional public administration values (efficiency, effectiveness, etc.) and practices<ref>Schachter, H.L. (2002). Women, progressive-era reform, and scientific management. ''Administration & Society'', 34(5), 563–78.</ref><ref>Schachter, H.L. (2011). The New York School of Philanthropy, the Bureau of Municipal Research, and the trail of the missing women: a public administration history detective story. ''Administration & Society'', 43(1), 3–21.</ref> of their male reformist counterparts, they also emphasized social justice and social equity. Jane Addams, for example, was a founder of the [[NAACP|National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] (NAACP).<ref>Shields, P. (ed.)(2017) ''Jane Addams: Progressive Pioneer of Peace, Philosophy, Sociology, Social Work and Public Administration'', Springer.</ref>

===== The Settlement Model of Public Administration =====
The Settlement movement and its leaders such as Jane Addams, [[Julia Lathrop]], and [[Florence Kelley]] were instrumental in crafting the alternative, feminine inspired, model of public administration.<ref name="ReferenceB" /><ref>McGuire, J.T. (2011). Continuing an alternative view of public administration: Mary van Kleeck and industrial citizenship, 1918–1927. Administration & Society, 43(1), 66–86.</ref> This settlement model of public administration, had two interrelated components – municipal housekeeping and industrial citizenship.<ref name="Shields, P. 2022" /><ref name="Shields, P. M. 2022 pp.1 - 19" /> Municipal housekeeping<ref>Shields, P. (2017). Jane Addams: pioneer in American sociology, social work and public administration. In Shields, P. (Ed.), Jane Addams: Progressive Pioneer of Peace, Philosophy, Sociology, Social Work and Public Administration, pp. 43–67. Springer.</ref> called for cities to be run like a caring home, the city should be conceived as an extension of the home where families could be safe and children cared for. Clean streets, clean water, playgrounds, educational curricular reform, and juvenile courts, are examples of reforms associated with this movement. Industrial citizenship <ref>Shields, Patricia (2023). 'Jane Addams and Public Administration: Clarifying Industrial Citizenship', in Patricia M. Shields, Maurice Hamington, and Joseph Soeters (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Jane Addams pp. 305–326. Oxford Academic https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544518.013.3</ref> focused on the problems and risks of labor force participation in a laissez-faire, newly industrialized economy. Reforms that mitigated workplace problems such as child labor, unsanitary workplaces, excessive work schedules, risks of industrial accidents, and old age poverty were the focus of these efforts. Organized settlement women's reform efforts led to workplace safety laws and inspections. Settlement reformers went on to serve as local, state, and federal administrators. Jane Addams was a garbage inspector, Florence Kelley served as the chief factory inspector for the State of Illinois, Julia Lathrop was the first director of the [[United States Women's Bureau|Women's Bureau]] and [[Francis Perkins]] was Secretary of Labor during the F. Roosevelt Administration<ref>Shields, P. (2022). The origins of the settlement model of public administration. In Shields, P. and Elias, N. (Eds.), Handbook on Gender and Public Administration. pp. 35–52. Edward Elgar Publishing</ref><ref>Burnier, D. (2008). Erased history: Frances Perkins and the emergence of care-centered public administration. Administration & Society, 40(4), 403–22.</ref><ref>Newman, M.A. (2004). Madam Secretary: Frances Perkins. In Felbinger, C. and Hanes, W. (Eds.), Outstanding Women in Public Administration: Leaders, Mentors, and Pioneers, pp. 83–102. Routledge.</ref>