Text b Administration and Management

The words ‘management’ and ‘administration’ are close in meaning, but a brief foray into semantics allows a case to be made that the terms ‘management’ and ‘administration’ are significantly different and that a manager performs a different role from an administrator.

The Oxford Dictionary defines administration as: ‘an act of administering’, which is then ‘to manage the affairs of’ or ‘to direct or superintend the execution, use or conduct of’, while management is: ‘to conduct, to control the course of affairs by one’s own action, to take charge of’. The Latin origins of the two words also show significant differences. Administration comes from minor then ministrare, meaning: ‘to serve, and hence later, to govern’. Management comes from manus, meaning: ‘to control by hand’. The essential difference in meaning is between ‘to serve’ and ‘to control or gain results’.

From these various definitions it is argued that administration essentially involves following instructions and service, while management involves: first, the achievement of results, and secondly, personal responsibility by the manager for results being achieved. The terms administration and management are not synonymous, neither is their application to the public sector. Public administration is an activity serving the public, and public servants carry out policies derived from others. It is concerned with procedures, with translating policies into action and with office management. Management does include administration, but also involves organization to achieve objectives with maximum efficiency, as well as genuine responsibility for results.

It follows that a public service based on administrative concepts will be different from one based on management and there are continuing and unresolved tensions between the two views.

Part II Text c Public Administration as Theory and Practice

What is here called the traditional model of public administration₆ was once a major reform movement. Where previously amateurs bound by personal loyalties to leaders carried out public administration, the task became a professional occupation which was carried out by a distinct merit-based public service₁. Serving the public at the time was a high calling, one that required the best people available to form a distinct administrative elite and to act always according to the law and established precedents. Politicians might come and go but, while the apparatus of government was in the hands of permanent officials₉, the transition between regimes could be handled smoothly. Public administration as both theory and practice began in the late nineteenth century, became formalized somewhere between 1900 and 1920, and lasted in most Western countries largely unchanged until the last quarter of the twentieth century.

The traditional model can be characterized as: an administration under the formal control of the political leadership, based on a strictly hierarchical model of bureaucracy₁₀, staffed by permanent, neutral and anonymous officials, motivated only by the public interest₈, serving any government party equally, and not contributing to policy₁₁ but merely administrating₆ those policies₁₁ decided by the politicians. Its theoretical foundations mainly derive from Woodrow Wilson¹ and Frederic Taylor in the United States, Max Weber² in Germany, and the Northcote-Trevelyan Report³ of 1854 in the United Kingdom.

The traditional model of public administration remains the longest standing and most successful theory of management in the public sector₄, but is now being replaced. It has not disappeared overnight and elements of it still exist, but its theories and practices are now considered old-fashioned and no longer relevant to the needs of a rapidly changing society. There has been a transformation in the management of the public sectors of advanced countries. The traditional model of public administration, which predominated for most of the twentieth century, has changed since the mid-1980s to a flexible, market-based form of public management₇. This is not simply a matter of reform or a minor change in management style, but a change in the role of government in society and the relationship between government and citizenry₁₂. Traditional public administration has been discredited theoretically and practically, and the adoption of new forms of public management means the emergence of a new paradigm in the public sector.

This new paradigm poses a direct challenge to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public administration.

The first of these was that of bureaucracy, that governments should organize themselves according to the hierarchical, bureaucratic₁₀ principles most clearly enunciated in the classic analysis of bureaucracy by the German sociologist Max Weber. Although adopted by business and other institutions, these precepts were carried out far more diligently and for longer in the public sector.

Secondly, there was one-best-way of working and procedures were set out in comprehensive manuals for administrators₆ to follow. Strict adherence to these scientific management principles (Taylor, 1911) would provide the single best way of operating an organization.

The third principle was bureaucratic delivery₁₃; once government involved itself in a policy area, it also became the direct provider of goods and services through the bureaucracy.

Fourthly, there was general belief among administrators in the politics/administration dichotomy₁₉, that is, where political and administrative₆ matters could be separated. The administration would be an instrument merely to carry out instructions, while any matters of policy or strategy were the preserve of the political leadership (Wilson, 1941).

Fifthly, the motivation of the individual public servant₂ was assumed to be that of the public interest; in that service to the public was provided selflessly.

Sixthly, public administration was considered a special kind of activity and, therefore, required a professional bureaucracy, neutral, anonymous, employed for life, with the ability to serve any political master equally.

Seventhly, the tasks involved in public service were indeed administrative in the dictionary sense, that is, following the instructions provided by others without personal responsibility for results.

These seven seeming verities have been challenged.

First, bureaucracy is indeed powerful but does not work well in all circumstances and has some negative consequences.

Secondly, trying to find the one-best-way is elusive and can lead to rigidity in operation. Flexible management systems pioneered by the private sector are being adopted by governments.

Thirdly, delivery by bureaucracy is not the only way to provide public goods and services₅; governments can operate indirectly through subsidies₁₄, regulation₁₅ or contracts, instead of always being the direct provider.

Fourthly, political and administrative matters have in reality been intertwined for a long time, but the implications of this for management structures are only now being worked through. The public demands better mechanisms of accountability₁₆ where once the bureaucracy operated separately from the society.

Fifthly, while there may be public servants motivated by the public interest, it now seems incontrovertible that they are political players in their own right. They may also be assumed to work for their own advancement and that of their agency₁₇, instead of being pure and selfless.

Sixthly, the case for unusual employment conditions in the public services₃ is now much weaker, especially given the changes that have taken place in the private sector where jobs for life are rare.

Finally, the tasks involved in the public sector are now considered more managerial, that is, requiring someone to take responsibility for the achievement of results, instead of being regarded as administrative and with public servants merely following instructions.

Economic problems in the 1980s meant governments reassessed their bureaucracies and demanded changes. As Caiden⁴ argued, ‘All blamed the dead hand of bureaucracy, especially the poor performance of public bureaucracies and the daily annoyances of irksome restrictions, cumbrous red-tape, unpleasant officials, poor service and corrupt practices₁₈,’ (1991). A radical change in organizational culture is occurring, but not without cost. The new approach has problems, not the least of them the disruption to standard operating procedures and poor morale. There seemed to be a long way to go before a new results-based management could emerge, although there was no going back to the traditional model of public administration.