Ch10. Public Administration — Comprehensive Review and Key Concepts

Theoretical Development of Public Administration — Summary

┌──────────────────────────┬────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ Theory                   │ Core Emphasis          │ Key Scholars             │
├──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Administrative Management│ Efficiency, division   │ Wilson, Taylor,          │
│                          │ of labor, control      │ Gulick (POSDCORB)        │
│ Behavioral Approach      │ Scientific analysis,   │ Simon (bounded           │
│                          │ decision-making        │ rationality)             │
│ New Public Administration│ Equity, participation, │ Frederickson             │
│                          │ social change          │                          │
│ New Public Management    │ Market, performance,   │ Hood, Osborne &          │
│ (NPM)                    │ efficiency             │ Gaebler                  │
│ New Governance           │ Collaboration,         │ Rhodes, Kettl            │
│                          │ networks               │                          │
└──────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┘

Organization, Personnel, and Budget — Core Comparisons

Organization:
Bureaucratic dysfunctions: goal displacement · over-conformity · turf protection
  · inertia · secrecy
Span of control ↑ = fewer levels (flat). Centralization = coordination;
decentralization = autonomy.

Personnel:
Spoils system = political loyalty. Merit system = examination and ability.
Position classification = job-centered. Rank = person-centered.
Adverse actions (most → least severe): removal > suspension > reduction in grade
> furlough > reprimand

Budget:
Federal cycle: formulation (OMB/President) → congressional action → execution
→ audit (GAO + IGs)
ZBB = zero baseline; justify everything. Line-item = input control.
Categorical grants = strings attached. Block grants = flexible.

Policy Decision-Making Models — Comparison

Rational-Comprehensive: perfect information + optimal choice → unrealistic
Bounded Rationality (Simon): limited information + satisficing
Incremental (Lindblom): small adjustments to status quo → realistic, conservative
Mixed Scanning (Etzioni): rational (major) + incremental (minor)
Garbage Can (Cohen/March): chance coupling of problems, solutions,
  participants, and opportunities

Key Distinctions:
Realistic/descriptive: satisficing, incremental
Normative/prescriptive (ideal): rational-comprehensive
Organized anarchy: garbage can model

Common Mistakes and Misconceptions

① Efficiency vs. Effectiveness
   → Efficiency = output / input ratio (doing things right)
   → Effectiveness = achieving intended goals (doing the right things)
   → They can be in tension: efficient programs may not be effective

② Dual Federalism vs. Cooperative Federalism
   → Dual = strict constitutional separation ("layer cake")
   → Cooperative = shared, intertwined functions ("marble cake")
   → U.S. today = predominantly cooperative

③ Ombudsman ≠ Binding Authority
   → Can only recommend; cannot compel compliance
   → Influence comes from independence, publicity, and moral authority

④ Position Classification vs. Rank Classification
   → Position: equal pay for equal work; specialist focus
   → Rank: seniority-based pay; generalist development

⑤ ZBB vs. Incremental Budgeting
   → ZBB = start from zero; justify every program anew; resource-intensive
   → Incremental = prior-year base + adjustments; practical, common in practice

⑥ Categorical Grants vs. Block Grants
   → Categorical = specific purpose + federal conditions + matching requirements
   → Block = broad purpose + state/local discretion + fewer conditions

⑦ Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Implementation
   → Top-down: faithful execution of legislative intent
   → Bottom-up: street-level discretion shapes outcomes (Lipsky)
   → Street-level bureaucracy aligns with bottom-up perspective

⑧ Positive-List vs. Negative-List Regulation
   → Positive-list = only permitted activities allowed; innovation-constraining
   → Negative-list = everything allowed except what is explicitly banned;
      innovation-friendly; used in regulatory sandboxes

⑨ Federal Budget Submission Timing
   → President's Budget: first Monday in February
   → New fiscal year begins: October 1
   → Under CRs: agencies operate without final appropriations

⑩ Public Organizations ≠ Private Organizations
   → Public agencies are accountable to Congress, the President, and the public
   → Bottom line is public value, not profit
   → Subject to Administrative Procedure Act, FOIA, ethics laws

Key Concept Cards

Tension Among Administrative Values ★★★★★ : Efficiency ↑ may mean equity ↓. Strict legality may slow effectiveness. Administrative values involve real trade-offs. Memory tip: no single value dominates — they compete

The Budget Cycle ★★★★★ : Formulation (OMB/President) → Congressional action → Execution → Audit (GAO + IGs). Memory tip: OMB builds, Congress enacts, agencies spend, GAO checks

The Incremental Model’s Significance ★★★★★ : Complete rational analysis is impossible in practice → incremental change from the baseline is realistic. Builds political consensus. Memory tip: incremental = realistic compromise

Practice Questions (Comprehensive)

Q. Give examples of how administrative values conflict with each other.

Efficiency vs. democratic participation: bypassing public comment speeds decisions but undermines democratic legitimacy. Legal compliance vs. effectiveness: strict procedural requirements may delay emergency response. Equity vs. efficiency: targeting resources to underserved populations increases costs and may appear “inefficient” by narrow metrics. These tensions are built into pluralist governance — no single value wins all the time.

Q. What problems emerged in U.S. public administration after the adoption of NPM principles?

Agencies focused disproportionately on easily measurable outcomes, neglecting harder-to-quantify public values (fairness, dignity, community cohesion). Contracting out eroded institutional capacity and accountability. Pay-for-performance schemes sometimes undermined collaboration and public service motivation. Treating citizens as “customers” obscured their role as democratic principals with rights, not merely preferences.