Evolution of Public Administration

Evolution: A Historical Account

Evolution refers to gradual unfolding of development of things in the course of time. When the past, present and future are considered in terms-of a continuum, the study of the past or of history becomes all the more significant. History, in the words of E. H. Carr is an unending dialogue between the past and the present. Indeed, it is necessary for the understanding of the contemporary status of the subject and the critical issues therein, the genesis of which may be found in the past. Broadly, the study of evolution fulfils both theoretical and practical purposes. From the theoretical point of view, it helps to locate the subject in a broader frame of reference and from the practical point of view it facilitates the use of the knowledge of the past to further the development of the subject in the present.

Administrative Traditions

There are three traditions namely, Absolutist Traditions, Liberal-Democratic Traditions and Marxian Traditions, Liberal-Democratic Traditions has 7 phases, viz. Politics-Administration Approach, Structural Approach, Human Relations Approach, Behavioural Approach, Development Approach, Public Policy Approach, Public Economy Approach.

1. ABSOLUTIST TRADITIONS

Absolutist tradition refers to administrative traditions of absolute monarchical regimes, where all powers were concentrated in the monarch. The earliest work concerning it is Kautilya's Arthasastra, the most important, work on Public Administration in ancient India. We confine our discussion to the Indian tradition mainly for two reasons:

Firstly, sufficient information is not available on the absolutist administrative traditions of other Asian societies.

Secondly, the students of administration should be acquainted with their own traditions in the field of Public Administration.

Kautilya, also known as Chanakya and Vishnugupta was the Prime Minister of Chandragupta (322BC-298BC) who founded the Maurya Dynasty of Magadha (Bihar). Kautilya's treatise known as Arthasastra ranks in importance with Manusmriti and Kamasastra and forms a triad with them in dealing with the three imperative of the social philosophy i.e. Dharma (Religion), Kama (Sex), Artha (Economy). It deals mainly with the Science of Polity, which, according to Kautilya, is a combination of Science of Wealth and Science of Government. [Vittasastra (Economics) and Dandanjthi (Statecraft)].

To Kautilya, finances provide the sinews of government and financial considerations are paramount in the government's activities. Thus, his treatise adopts the ‘political economy approach’ to the understanding of the problems of governance. Kautilya's Arthashastra mainly discusses three aspects of the science of Public Administration, viz.

The principles of Public Administration:

The principles of administration are not explicitly dealt with in Arthasastra. They are implied by the functions of the monarch, ministers etc.

The machinery of Government:

The machinery of Government as described in the Arthasastra is mainly related to the monarch, his relations with ministers, etc.

The management of personnel:

The problems of higher-level personnel receive greater Attention than the lower-level functionaries in Arthasastra.

According to Kautilya, an administrator can adopt the art of Public Administration only if he is conversant with the science of Public Administration. He emphasised the principles of authority, obedience and discipline as being central to the administration of the state. He considered principles like division of work, hierarchy and coordination important to the mechanism of internal organisation. Further, Kautilya is, perhaps, the earliest known thinker to recognise the importance of statistics in administration. Kautilya made a systematic study of the society and did not blindly accept the current views based on faith and tradition. Ancient Hindus held that the Vedas constitute the sole source of law. But Kautilya laid down four distinct sources of law; namely;

• Sacred scriptures,
• The rules laid down in Arthasastra,
• Customs
• edicts of kings.

Each of these he considers more authoritative than the one preceding it. He explicitly states that when the sacred law is in conflict with the corporal law the latter should prevail. Arthasastra is secular in its tenor and puts politics in command over religion. According to Kautilya, religious considerations should not outweigh political considerations. The King according to him should strive and maintain the stability of the State and increase his power and material resources by policy or subterfuge.

2. LIBERAL-DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS

Traditionally, the origins of Public Administration as a separate area of inquiry are traced to Woodrow Wilson's essay, The Study of Administration published in 1887. Since then the study of the subject passed through various phases. Let us briefly discuss each one of them.

Politics-Administration Dichotomy Approach

Woodrow Wilson, the father of modern Public Administration, considered politics and administration as separate processes and attempted to, conceptually distinguish between the two areas of study. A similar attempt was made by Frank Goodnow, another exponent of the dichotomy approach who observed that "politics has to do with policies or expressions of state while the administration has to do with the execution of these policies". This distinction is made between policymaking and policy execution. Policy making is regarded as the realm of politics and execution as the realm of Public Administration. Further, politics and Public Administration are differentiated on the basis of their institutional locations. The location of politics is identified with the legislature and the higher echelons of government where major policy-decisions would be made and the larger questions of allocation of values decided upon. The location of administration, on the other hand is identified with the executive arm of government-the bureaucracy.

Structural Approach

This approach is marked by the tendency to reinforce the idea of politics-administration dichotomy and to evolve a value-free 'Science of Management". The 'Public' aspect of Public Administration was virtually dropped at this stage and the focus was almost wholly on economy and efficiency. The questions of 'value' were not considered important to the new science of Administration. Politics as practised by the politicians was considered irrelevant. Scientific Management for the efficient handling of the 'business' of administration became the focus of interest. Principles of management were worked out as readymade aids to practitioners. The administrative practitioners and the business schools joined hands to emphasise the mechanistic aspect of management unaffected by the predilections of politicians and the failings of human beings. The approach emphasised the structure of the organisation. Structure is a device through which human beings working in an organisation are assigned tasks and related with one another. It is believed that the effective functioning of the organisation depends upon the structure that a group of human beings build and operate. The structural approach was criticised for

• the ambiguity of its principles,
• absence of scientific validity
• its mechanistic approach to human problems.

Human Relations Approach

The Hawthorne experiments pioneered a movement which came to be known as the Human Relations Approach to management. This approach to organisational analysis drew attention to

• the formation and effect of work groups in the organisation
• the force of informal organisation in the formal setup,
• the phenomena of leadership
• conflicts and cooperation among groups in the organisational setting.

In short, human relations approach brought up the limitations of the machine concept of organisation in 'Scientific Management' thought. By drawing attention to the social and psychological factors of work situation, it underlined the importance of the "human side of the enterprise". The social psychologist has extended the concern of human relationists by bringing in additional knowledge about the sensitivity to human components. It is aimed at bringing about:

• Greater organisational productivity or effectiveness
• Greater human happiness and increased self-realisation

Prominent writers advocating this approach include Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Rensis Likert and Chris Argyris. The human relations approach has been criticised for its manipulative orientation. It is alleged that the aim of the movement is to manipulate the man in organisation to achieve higher productivity. It is also criticised for ignoring the institutional and social system variable in understanding the organisation. Sometimes, Social Psychological traditions are studied separately from Human Relation approach.

Behavioural Approach

Herbert Simon's Administrative Behaviour is a critique of the older Public Administration. More importantly, it sets forth the rigorous requirements of scientific analysis in Public Administration. Simon's conclusion about some of the classical 'Principles', was that they were unscientifically derived and were "no more than proverbs". He rejected the politics-administration dichotomy. The substantive focus was on "decision-making", and as Simon insisted, "If any ‘theory’ is involved, it is that decision-making is the heart of administration, and that the vocabulary of administrative theory must be derived from the logic and psychology of human choice". Simon's approach provided an alternative definition of Public Administration, and widened the scope of the subject by relating it to Psychology, Sociology, Economics and Political Science.

Development Approach

The ecological approach to the study of administration originated in the wake of the emergence of the Third World and increasing realisation of irrelevance of most of the western organisation theories to the study of administration. To quote Robert Dahl, "The study of Public Administration inevitably must become a much more broadly based discipline, resting not on a narrowly defined knowledge of techniques and processes, but rather extending to the varying historical, sociological, economic and other conditioning factors. Such efforts have given rise to Comparative Public Administration and Development Administration.

Public Policy Approach

The Social -Sciences' general concern for social engineering has resulted in the laying of emphasis on public policy. The study of Public Administration has also been influenced by the public policy perspective. The abandonment of politics-administration dichotomy made the public policy approach agreeable to administrative analysis. Evidences from the practical world of administration have brought out the criteria of a close nexus between politics and administration. As governments seek to formulate and implement more and more welfare programmes, the promotion of policy studies in Public Administration gathers momentum.

Political Economy Approach

Another development, in the study of Public Administration is brought about by the he adoption of the political economy approach to the analysis of administrative problems. This is associated with the moving of Political Science closer to Economics in the interest of greater theoretical coherence and better policy guidance. Economists like Anthony Downs and Gordon Tullock have gone over the boundary by experimenting with the application of economic methods and models to political problems. Thus Public Administration as a branch of Political Science and on its own has moved towards a liaison with Economics. The liberal democratic tradition in the evolution of Public Administration as described above shows that, starting, with an assertion of independent identity, it has moved towards the assimilation of ideas, methods and techniques of different Social Science disciplines. Thus the scope of the discipline seems to be broadening while the question of its identity remains unanswered.

3. MARXIAN TRADITIONS

We have to go back to Marx, to understand the classical Marxist view of bureaucracy. Although Marx has not paid much attention to the concept of bureaucracy, his views on bureaucracy and its relation to the power structure of the society found in his major works. Marxian traditions have placed the study of Public Administration in the wider -perspective of social transformation.

Naved Ashrafi is Doctoral Candidate (Public Administration) in Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He can be reached at navedashrafi@gmail.com