Reflecting on Reform and the Scope of Public Administration

Abstract

During the 1996 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced the end of the era of big government. Legislators from both sides of the political aisle leapt to their feet in celebration. Pundits, and lesser forms of commentators, pronounced the moment poignant, a declaration marking the convergence of reform philosophies from across the political spectrum. In the days that followed the president's address, the reactions of colleagues tended to fall into one of three groups: (1) the reform enthusiasts who are encouraged by this latest development in the drive towards an entrepreneurial public service; (2) the defenders of the faithful who offer dire consequences from the gutting of the public sector; and (3) the introverts who see in the current political climate a signal for the need to reflect on the state of the field. This is a curious time to come of age as a researcher in public administration. Inevitably there are moments when you are invited to declare an allegiance to one of these three camps. To date I've been able to escape by appealing to my own marginal abilities. I find it difficult enough to come up with a testable proposition that doesn't get my tailfeathers shot off by my peers to have much energy left for these exciting forms of advocacy. But my adoption of the agnosticism of the social scientist should not be construed as a lack of interest in the reform. Quite the contrary. Efforts to reinvent government, devolve power to the states, and constrain the growth of the federal budget pose a set of fundamental questions about the nature of governance. Ironically, the only sure bet that I can see coming from the current crop of reform proposals is a growth in the scope of issues that public administrators and public administration scholars are likely to address. This is entirely consistent with the history of public administration as a field of inquiry. In many ways public administration is the study of reform. It is a discipline born in the early Progressive and Civic Reform movements. The canon of issues that are central to the field (i.e., the scope) reflect the efforts of these early reformers to check corrupt political machines through budgets, accounting rules, merit-based personnel practices, bureaucratic structures, and separation of administration from politics through civil service reforms. Each succeeding reform movement has left a mark on both the way in which public administration is organized and the scope of issues that public administration researchers examine. Modern reform proposals are compelling because they tap into two major social trends: (1) the sense of alienation among citizens from public institutions, and (2) the terrible fear of loss in terms of wealth, life, and/or future. Both stimulate a demand for greater personal control. We see this quest at work in a variety of demands from the electorate that are often mutually exclusive: they want entrepreneurial, client oriented, adaptable and agile government that uses fewer resources to produce more services with high levels of personal accountability while reducing the intrusion of public officials in our daily lives. As the world of the public administrator changes to confront these challenges, so too will the issues that researchers address. It is likely that the scope of the field will be marked by a return to some old questions that have fallen out of our contemporary discourse. The chief of these will be examining the ways in which the public interest is defined. The modern twist to this question is understanding how tight public budgets influence the linkage between public interests and public remedies. Appeals to market failures are less persuasive in such a climate. Rather, citizen participation and client feedback will be areas that receive greater attention from both the practitioner and research communities. A concerted effort will be made to put the public back in public administration. …