A difference that is not a difference

Abstract

This symposium illustrates a serious problem. There has been a great deal of fragmentation in the field of public administration in the last two decades. For three decades, from the 40's through some of the 70's, public administration was able to encompass many diverse approaches within its boundaries. However, dissatisfaction with traditional public administration content, methodology, incrementalism, and administrative management led to divisions in the field of public policy and public management that have separated themselves from public administration. The desire for separateness is seen in changed names of academic programs and degrees, different course content and separate professional associations. The symposium was designed to try to stimulate debate and discussion of the ties rather than differences in the field. This article discusses the differences from the standpoint of the students, the practitioners of public administration, the faculty and the public. The conclusion is that there is much more which should join these programs than separate them and that the need to produce leaders for the public service requires strong places in the academic world for these programs. The field would be stronger if those who argue for public policy, public management and public affairs separate and unequal from public administration would engage in dialogue to take the best of all these approaches and merge into a stronger whole. The common concern with the public nature of the profession and the need to educate public leaders overrides most of the perceived differences. The weakness in the perception of the field generally and in the academic world caused by these splits will continue until more common efforts are undertaken. Public policy has contributed a great deal to improving methodological rigor in the field. Public management has been important in making the leap from policy to implementation. These differences have changed public administration considerably. But the parts of the field are not sufficiently aware of each other. Analysis of all the programs finds more in common than is acknowledged and finds that these differences do not make a real difference. It is time to begin discussion of how to make all parts of this field stronger, to improve the academic training, to increase the link between theory and practice, and to work together to improve the public image of public service. To do this, these divisions must be acknowledged and brought together into a stronger professional program for the public service.