Ads Area

STUDY MATERIAL | Political Science | Administration And Public Policy | 6th semester | Cluster University Srinagar


Introduction Administration as an activity is as old as society itself. But as an area of study it originated, with the publication of Wilson’s essay on study of Administration in 1887. As a process, administration occurs in both public and private organisations. Public administration relates to the activities carried out by government, private administration refers to the management of private business enterprises.


The word ‘administer’ is derived from the Latin word administere, which means to care for or to look after people, to manage affairs. Administration may be defined as “group activity which involves cooperation and coordination for the purpose of achieving desired goals or objectives”.
Broadly speaking, the term administration appears to bear at least four different meanings or different senses depending upon the context in which it is used:
(1) As a Discipline: The name of a branch of learning or intellectual discipline as taught and studied in colleges and universities.
(2) As a Vocation: Type of work/trade or profession/occupation, especially one that involves knowledge and training in a branch of advance learning.
(3) As a Process: The sum total of activities undertaken to implement Public Policy or policies to produce some services or goods.
(4) As a Synonym for 'word' Executive or Government: Such other body of persons in supreme charge of affairs, for example, Manmohan Singh Administration, Bush Administration, etc.


 White observes that although public administration varies in form and objects, and although the administration of public and private affairs differs at many points, there is an underlying similarity, if not identity. As an integral aspect of such generic concept, public administration could be related to that type of administration, which operates within a specific ecological setting. It is a means to carry out the policy decisions made by political executive.
To be seen along with it is the ‘Public’ aspect of Public administration, which attributes a special character and focus to it. ‘Public’ can be looked at formally to mean ‘government’. So, public administration is government administration, government in action, or a socio-
economic and politico-administrative confluence, the focus being especially on public bureaucracy. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines public administration as ‘the application of a policy of a state through its government.’
Public Administration, therefore, refers to that part of administration, which pertains to the administrative activities of the government. Now we will try to look into the definitions of Public Administration provided by various scholars.
Woodrow Wilson
Public administration is the detailed and systematic application of law. Every particular application of law is an act of administration.
L.D. White “Public administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy”.
Percy Mc Queen
Public administration is related to the operations of government whether local or central.
Luther Gulick
Public administration is that part of the science of administration, which has to do with the government; it concerns itself primarily with the executive branch where the work of the government is done; though there are obviously problems also in connection with the legislative and judicial branches.
J.M Pfiffner “Administration consists of getting the work of government done by coordinating the efforts of people so that they can work together to accomplish their set tasks”.
H.A. Simon, D.W. Smithburg and V.A. Thompson “By Public Administration is meant, in common usage, the activities of the executive branches of national, state and local governments, government corporations and certain other agencies of a specialised character. Specifically excluded are judicial and legislative agencies within the government and non-governmental administration.”
Dwight Waldo “Public administration is the art and science of management as applied to the affairs of State.” M.E. Dimock “Public Administration is concerned with ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the government. The ‘what’ is the subject matter, the technical knowledge of a field, which enables the administrator to
perform his tasks. The ‘how’ is the technique of management, the principles according to which co-operative programmes are carried through to success. Each is indispensable, together they form the synthesis called administration”.
In sum, public administration:

 is the non-political public bureaucracy operating in a political system;
 deals with the ends of the State, the sovereign will, the public interests and laws;
 is the business side of government and as such concerned with policy execution, but it is also concerned with policy-making;
 covers all three branches of government, although it tends to be concentrated in the executive branch;
 provides regulatory and service functions to the people in order to attain good life;
 differs significantly from private administration, especially in its emphasis on the public; and
 is interdisciplinary in nature as it draws upon other social sciences like political science, economics and sociology.
There are two views regarding the Nature of Public Administration, that is, Integral and Managerial.
According to the integral view, ‘administration’ is the sum total of all the activities – manual, clerical, managerial, etc., which are undertaken to realise the objectives of the organisation. In this view all the acts of officials of the government from the Attendant to the Secretaries to the government and Head of the State constitute Public Administration. Henri Fayol and L.D. White are the supporters of this view.
According to the managerial view of administration, the managerial activities of people who are involved in planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling constitute Public Administration. This view regards administration as getting things done and not doing things. Luther Gullick, Herbert Simon, Smithburg and Thompson are the supporters of this view. The managerial view excludes Public Administration from non-managerial activities such as manual, clerical and technical activities.
The two views differs from each other in many ways. According to Prof. M.P. Sharma the difference between the two views is fundamental. The integral view includes the activities of
all the persons engaged in administration whereas the managerial view restricts itself only to the activities of the few persons at the top. The integral view depicts all types of activities from manual to managerial, from non-technical to technical whereas the managerial view takes into account only the managerial activities in an organisation. Furthermore, administration, according to the integral view would differ from one sphere to another depending upon the subject matter, but whereas that will not be the case according to the managerial point of view because the managerial view is identified with the managerial techniques common to all the fields of administration.
The difference between the two views relates to the difference between management and operation or we may say between getting things done and doing things. The correct meaning of the term administration would however, depend upon the context in which it is used. Dimock, Dimock and Koening sum up in the following words:
“As a study public administration examines every aspect of government’s efforts to discharge the laws and to give effect to public policy; as a process, it is all the steps taken between the time an enforcement agency assumes jurisdiction and the last break is placed (but includes also that agency’s participation, if any, in the formulation of the programme in the first place); and as a vocation, it is organising and directing the activities of others in a public agency.”


By the scope of Public Administration, we mean the major concerns of Public Administration as an activity and as a discipline.
Scope of Public Administration as an activity
Broadly speaking, Public Administration embraces all the activities of the government. Hence as an activity the scope of public administration is no less than the scope of state activity. In the modern welfare state people expect many things – a wide variety of services and protection from the government. In this context public administration provides a number of welfare and social security services to the people. Besides, it has to manage government owned industries and regulate private industries. Public administration covers every area and activity within the ambit public policy. Thus, the scope of public administration is very wide in modern state.
Scope of Public Administration as a Discipline
The scope of public administration as a discipline, that is subject of studies, comprises of the following:

The POSDCoRB view
Several writers have defined the scope of public administration in varying terms. Gullick sums up the scope of the subject by the letters of the word POSDCoRB which denote: Planning, Organisation, Staffing, Directing, Co-ordinating, Reporting and Budgeting.
Planning means the working out in broad outline the things to be done, the methods to be adopted to accomplish the purpose.
Organisation means the establishment of the formal structure of authority through which the work is sub-divided, arranged, defined and coordinated.
Staffing means the recruitment and training of the personnel and their conditions of work.
Directing means making decisions and issuing orders and instructions.
Coordinating means inter-relating the work of various divisions, sections and other parts of the organisation.
Reporting means informing the superiors within the agency to whom the executive is responsible about what is going on.
Budgeting means fiscal planning, control and accounting.
According to Gullick the POSDCoRB activities are common to all organisations. They are the common problems of management which are found in different agencies regardless of the nature of the work they do.
POSDCoRB gives unity, certainty, and definiteness and makes the study more systematic. The critics pointed out that the POSDCoRB activities were neither the whole of administration, nor even the most important part of it. The POSDCoRB view over looks the fact that deferent agencies are faced with different administrative problems, which are peculiar to the nature of the services, they render and the functions they performed. The POSDCoRB view takes into consideration only the common techniques of the administration and ignores the study of the ‘subject matter’ with which the agency is concerned. A major defect is that the POSDCoRB view does not contain any reference to the formulation and implementation of the policy. Therefore, the scope of administration is defined very narrowly, being too inward looking and too conscious of the top management.
The Subject Matter View
We all know that public administration deals not only with the processes but also with the substantive matters of administration, such as Defence, Law and Order, Education, Public Health, Agriculture, Public Works, Social Security, Justice, Welfare, etc. These services require not only POSDCoRB techniques but also have important specialised techniques of their own which are not covered by POSDCoRB techniques. For example, if you take Police
Administration it has its own techniques in crime detection, maintenance of Law and Order, etc., which are much and more vital to efficient police work, than the formal principles of organisation, personnel management, coordination or finance and it is the same with other services too. Therefore, the study of public administration should deal with both the processes (that is POSDCoRB techniques and the substantive concerns). We conclude the scope of public administration with the statement of Lewis Meriam: “Public administration is an instrument with two blades like a pair of scissors. One blade may be knowledge of the field covered by POSDCoRB, the other blade is knowledge of the subject matter in which these techniques are applied. Both blades must be good to make an effective tool”.
We may conclude the discussion with the observation of Herbert Simon who says that Public administration has two important aspects, namely deciding and doing things. The first provides the basis for the second. One cannot conceive of any discipline without thinking or deciding. Thus Public administration is a broad-ranging and an amorphous combination of theory and practice.


The major concern of administration is to properly organise men and material for achieving desired ends. As a co-operative group activity, administration is truly universal and operates in all types of public and private organisations. In other words, administration occurs in both public and private institutional settings. Its nature depends upon the nature of the setting and goals with which it is concerned. On the basis of the nature of the institutional setting, public administration can be roughly distinguished from private administration. Public administration is governmental administration concerned with achieving state purposes, determined by the state. Private administration, on the other hand is, concerned with administration of private business organisation and is distinct from public administration. Let us elaborate this
Distinction between public and private administration

John Gaus, Ludivig Von Mises, Paul H. Appleby, Sir Josia Stamp, Herbert A. Simon, Peter Drucker, etc., in their writings, have made distinction between public and private administration.
According to Simon, the distinction between public and private administration relates mainly to three points:
• Public administration is bureaucratic whereas private administration is business like;
 Public administration is political where as private administration is non-political; and
• Public administration is characterised by red-tape where as private administration is free from it.
Felix A. Nigro has pointed out that government is also different from private organisation, as no private company can equal to it in size and diversity of activities.
According to Sir Josiah Stamp, the four principles, which differentiate public from private administration, are:
• Principle of Uniformity: Common and uniform laws and regulations mostly regulate public Administration.
• Principle of External Financial Control: the representatives of the people through a legislative body control Government revenues and heads of expenditure.
• Principle of Ministerial Responsibility: Public administration is accountable to its political masters and through them to the people.
• Principle of marginal Return: The main objective of a business venture is profit, however small it may be. However, most of the objectives of public administration can neither be measured in money terms nor checked by accountancy methods.
According to Paul H. Appleby public administration is different from private administration. He remark, “In broad terms the governmental function and attitude have at least three complementary aspects that go to differentiate government from all other institutions and activities: breadth of scope, impact and consideration; public accountability; political character. No non-governmental institution has the breadth of government.
Appleby notes that the political character of Public Administration differentiates it from private administration. Public Administration is subject to political direction and control. This is the primary distinction between the two. He further argues, “Administration is politics since it must be responsive to the public interest. It is necessary to emphasise the fact that popular political processes, which are the essence of democracy, can only work through governmental organisation, and that all governmental organisations are not merely administrative entities, they are and must be political organisms.”
Appleby reflects further on the distinction between public and private administration in the context of public accountability “Government administration differs from all other
administrative work to a degree not even faintly realised outside, by virtue of its public nature, the way in which it is subject to public scrutiny and outcry. This interest often runs to details of administrative action that in private business would never be of concern other then inside the organisation.
According to Appleby private administration cannot claim the breadth of scope, impact and consideration of the public administration. He observes, “The organised government impinges upon and is affected by practically everything that exists or moves in our society. It involves policies and actions of immense complexity. Its fullest possible understanding requires the wisdom of many specialists as will as the key participants in public and private life.
The more important distinguishing features of Public administration may be described under the following sub-heads:
Political Direction: Public administration is political, while private administration is non-political, public administration takes place in a political context.
Absence of profit motive: The absence of profit motive from the Public administration is another feature, which distinguishes it from the private administration. The primary purpose of governmental organisation is to provide services to the people and promote social good.
Prestige: Public administrators who serve in the Government enjoy high status and prestige in comparison to their counterparts in private enterprises especially developing countries.
Public Gaze: All the actions of public administration are exposed to wide public gaze because the public closely watches it. This does not happen in private administration.
Service and Cost: Most governments spend more money than their income or revenues. That is the reason for finding generally a deficit budget that is, expenditure exceeding income. Conversely, private administration income often exceeds expenditure without which they cannot survive.
Legal framework: Public administration operates within a legal framework. It is rule oriented. The responsibilities of public administrators are fixed by a set of constitutional practices, laws and regulations. Government officials are obliged to act within their legal powers and not outside the law.
Consistency of treatment: A government official is required by law to maintain a high degree of consistency in his dealings with the public. He has to observe the principle of equality of treatment in serving the people. It is a legal obligation to not to discriminate against any person.
Public accountability: Public accountability is the hallmark of Public administration in a democracy. Public administration is responsible to the public, though not directly but indirectly through political executive, legislature, judiciary, etc.
Large-scale administration: Public administration is large-scale administration. It is said that almost anything under the sun is directly or indirectly under the domain of public administration. It is by all means larger than any big private concern in terms of size., complexity and diversity of activities.
Monopolistic and Essential Services: In the field of public administration, there is generally a monopoly of the government and it does not generally allow private parties to compete with it. For example, no person or bodies of persons are allowed to establish or perform functions related to public services like national security, foreign relations, law and order, mint and currency, as these are the exclusive fields of the government and thoroughly important for the community and polity to prosper.
Officials remain Anonymous: In public administration, even the most senior officials remain anonymous and their identity is not disclosed. This is so because whatever they do, they do in the name of the government and not in their own name.
Financial meticulousness: Public administration has to be very careful in financial matters because it is working as custodian of people’s money.
Lower level of Efficiency: Efficiency is said to be the cornerstone of any organisation. However, due to varied responsibilities, lack of effective control, less accountability, involvement of a large number of levels and job security of employees, efficiency has not been there in public organisations to the effect desired. When compared to private administration, one finds that the degree of efficiency in public organisations is at a lower level. With profit as the major motive coupled with excessive control and flexibility in personnel administration the level of efficiency in private organisations is much higher.
Similarities between Public and Private Administration
Scholars like Henry Fayol, Mary P. Follet and L. Urwick do not make a distinction between public and private administration. The classical writers held the view that public and private administrations are the undifferentiated members of the genus administration. Henri Foyal, for example, says that there is only one administrative science, which can be applied equally well to public and private sectors. In his address in the Second International Congress of Administrative Science, Fayol remarked, “The meaning which I have given to the word
administration and which has been generally adopted, broadens considerably the field of administrative sciences. It embraces not only the public service but also enterprises of every size and description, of every form and every purpose. All undertakings require planning, organisation, command, co-ordination and control and in order to function properly, all must observe the same general principles. We are no longer confronted with several administrative sciences but with one which can be applied equally well to public and to private affairs”.
The following similarities between the two types of administration may be noted:
1. Both public and business administration rely on common skills, techniques and procedures.
2. In modern times the principle of profit motive is not peculiar to private administration, because it is now accepted as a laudable objective for public sector enterprises also.
3. In personnel management, the private organisations have been influenced greatly by the practices of public organisations.
4. The private concerns are also subjected to many legal constraints. Government is exercising much control over business firms through regulatory legislation such as taxation, monetary and licensing policies, etc. Consequently, they are not as free as they once used to be.
5. There is a similar type of hierarchy and management systems, both in public and private sectors. Both have same kind of organisation structure, superior – subordinate relationships, etc.
6. Both Pubic and private administration carries on continuous efforts to improve their internal working and also for efficient delivery of services to people or customers.
7. Public and private administration serves the people, whether being called clients or customers. Both have to maintain close contact with people to inform about their services and also to get feedback about services and product. In both the cases, public relations help them to inform and improve their services to the people.

The preceding discussion shows that the distinction between public and private administration is not absolute. In fact, they are becoming more and more alike in many respects. However, it does not mean that there are no significant differences between these two types of administration. Waldo observes that Public administration is distinct because it reflects the peculiar characteristics of government activity and the public setting in which it functions.
Given the wide acceptance of the ideas of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, both public and private administrations have to compete in the same area to provide services to people. Here both are dealing with customers, who pay for their services, in such a situation it narrows down the differences between the public and private administration. New Public Management, which has come into prominence, recently, puts emphasis on managerial techniques, which are to be adopted by public administration for the efficient delivery of public services. But in providing pubic services in the field of social and welfare areas their exists a difference between public and private administration
With this brief characterisation, it could be stated that both public and private administration are placed in different environments. But this difference is more apparent than real. According to Waldo, The generalisation which distinguish public administration from private administration by special care for equality of treatment, legal authorisation of, and responsibility of action, public justification of decisions, financial probity and meticulousness, etc. are of very limited applicability,” In fact public and private administrations are the “two species of the same genus, but they have special values and techniques of their own which give to each its distinctive character.


We will be discussing the importance of public administration as a specialised subject of study and later the role and importance of public administration in the modern society.
Importance of Public Administration as Specialised Subject of Study
The study of administration assumed significance, according to Woodrow Wilson, as a consequence to the increasing complexities of society, growing functions of state and growth of governments on democratic lines. This exhaustive list of functions made to think as to ‘how’ and in what ‘directions’ these functions should be effectively performed. To this Wilson suggested that there was a need to reform the government in the administrative field. As per Wilson, the object of administrative study is to discover what government can properly and successfully does and how it can do these things with utmost efficiency and the least possible cost either of money or of energy.
The importance of public administration as a specialised subject can be attributed to the following reasons:
• One of the important reasons is the practical concern that the government today has to work towards the public interest. The first and foremost objective of public administration is to
efficiently deliver public services. In this context, Wilsonian definition of the subject as efficiency promoting and pragmatic field was the first explicitly articulated statement on the importance of a separate discipline of public administration. During the first half of the preceding century, a numbers of countries have appointed committees to look into the problems of administration and recommended suitable administrative machinery to respond to diverse public needs. The Haldane Committee Report (1919) in Britain; the President’s Committee on Administrative Management (1937) in the United States; A.D. Gorwala Committee’s and Paul H. Appleby’s Reports in India are some of the examples of the efforts by various countries to make changes in public administration. During the last four decades also, a number of reports, produced by committees/commissions appointed by governments in various countries or multilateral agencies, and books published by scholars have enriched the discipline and provided new perspectives to public administration to tune it to the changing needs of the times. They include: Report of the Committee on the Civil Services (Fulton Committee Report, U.K., 1968); various reports of the Administrative Reforms Commission (India, 1967-72); Reinventing Government (U.S.A., look by David Orborne and Ted Gabler, 1992), Governance and sustainable Development (UNDP, 1997) and World Development Report: Building Institutions for Markets (The World Bank, 2002).
• Administration is looked at, in the social science perspective, as a cooperative and social activity. Hence the concern of academic inquiry would be to understand the impact of government policies and operations on society. What kind of society do the policies envisage?; To what extent administrative action is non-discriminatory?; How is public administration functioning and what are the immediate and long term effects of governmental action on the social structure, the economy and polity?; etc. are questions requiring careful analysis. From the social science perspective, public administration, as a discipline, has to draw on a variety of sister disciplines such as History, Sociology, Economics, Geography, Philosophy, Psychology, etc., with the objective to explain and not just to prescribe.
• Public administration has a special status in the developing countries. Many of these countries, after independence from the colonial rule have stressed upon speedy socio – economic development. Obviously, these countries have to relay on government for speedy development. The latter requires a public administration to be organised and effectively operated for increasing productivity quickly. Likewise, social welfare activities have to be effectively executed. These aspects have given birth to the new sub-discipline of development administration. The emergence of development administration is indicative of a felt need for a body of knowledge about how to study the third world administration and
at the same time to bring about speedy socio-economic development with government’s intervention. Development administration has therefore, emerged as a sub-discipline to serve the cause of development.
• Public administration, as witnessed holds a place of significance in the lives of people. It touches them at every step. For most of their needs, the citizens depend upon public administration. In view of the important role of public administration in the lives of people, the citizens of a country cannot ignore. Therefore, its teaching should become a part of the curriculum of educational institutions. People must get to know about the structure of government, the activities it undertakes and the manner in which these are actually performed. The study of public administration will contribute to the realisation of the values of citizenship.
Importance of Public Administration as an Activity
The contemporary age, which has witnessed the emergence of ‘Administrative State’, public administration has become an essential part of society and a dominant factor. The functions it is called upon to perform, have expanded in scope and nature, and what is more, are continually increasing. Many of them are more positive in nature because they care for the essential requirements of human life, be it health, education, recreation, sanitation, social security or others. It is, therefore, a creative factor, with its motto being ‘human welfare’. These functions are over and above its regulatory functions. The view points of eminent scholars, as referred to below, amply reflect the significance of public administration.
Woodrow Wilson: “Administration is the most obvious part of government; it is government in action, it is the executive, the operative and the most visible side of the government.
Brooke Adams: “Administration is an important human faculty because its chief function is to facilitate social change and to cushion the stock of social revolution”.

W.B. Donham, ‘If our civilization fails, it will be mainly because of breakdown of administration’.
Paul H. Appleby: ‘Administration is the basis of government. No government can exist without administration. Without administration government would be a discussion club, if indeed, it could exist at all’.
The role of public administration in various facets is noted below:
• Basis of the Government: A Government can exist without a legislature or an independent judiciary. But no Government can exist without administration.
• An instrument for providing services: Public administration is mainly concerned with the performance of various activities performed by government in the public interest. Felix A. Nigro aptly remarks, “The real core of administration is the basic service which is performed for the public”.
• An instrument for implementing policies: Modern governments go a long way in formulating and adopting sound policies laws and regulations. It should not be forgotten that such policies, laws, etc. are not merely printed papers. Such paper declarations of intent are translated into reality by public administration thus converting words into action and form into substance.
• A stabilising force in society: Public administration is a major force for bringing stability in society. It has been observed that though government often changes, but violent change is seldom experienced by administration. An element of continuity between the old and the new orders is provided by public administration. It does not hold true only of constitutional changes of government in democratic countries, but is also reflected when there are revolutionary changes in the form and character of government.
• An instrument of social change and economic development: Public administration’s role as a change agent is particularly crucial in developing nations. It is expected of the state at present to work for accelerating socio-economic change and not to be a passive agency to maintain the status quo.
• Technical Character: The present day government is expected to provide various services to its population. The increase in the number of functions undertaken by the government require highly specialised, professional and technical, services. Modern public administration usually represents a galaxy of all of a nation’s occupations.
According Gerald Caiden public administration has assumed the following crucial roles in contemporary modern society:
• Preservation of polity;
• Maintenance of stability and order;
• Institutionalisation of Socio-Economic changes;
• Management of large scale commercial services;
• Ensuring growth and economic development;
• Protection of the weaker sections of society;
• Formation of public opinion; and
• Influencing Public policies.
The points mentioned below summarise the reasons for the growing importance of public administration:
• Emergence of Welfare and Democratic state
Emergence of welfare and democratic state has led to an increase in the activities of public administration compared to that of the laissez-faire state. The state has to now serve all sections of people in the society. This amount to enhanced responsibilities of public administration. Public administration is also to regulate and control private economic enterprises to meet the objectives of the state.
• Industrial Revolution
The industrial revolution gave rise to socio-economic problems making the government to assume new roles and responsibilities such as protection and promotion of the rights of workers in industrial establishments, etc. Consequently, the state has enacted a number of Industrial and Labour laws and it is imperative for public administration to implement such laws in order to meet the requirements of labour welfare.
• Scientific and Technological Development
Scientific and technological developments have brought about welcome additions in infrastructure such as power, transport and communication system. The invention of telephone, telegraph and other mechanical devices such as typewriter, tele-printer, and calculators, photocopying machines, computers, fax and the electronic mail has brought revolutionary changes in office administration. All these have made possible ‘big government’ and ‘large scale administration’. Besides changing the ethos and character of public administration, the revolution in information and communication technologies have contributed to improved delivery of services to people.
• Economic Planning
Centralised economic planning has been pursued in many developing countries as a method for socio-economic development. It requires a large number of experts and elaborate administrative machinery for plan formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
Apart from the reasons cited the rapid growth of population, modern warfare, increase in natural and manmade disasters, decline in social harmony, increase in violence due to conflicts, communal riots, ethnic wars, terrorism, etc. have increased the importance of public administration. It goes without saying that public administration is not only the operative but also the most obvious part of the government. It is government in action and occupies a significant place not merely as an instrument of governance but also as an important mechanism for preserving and promoting the welfare of community. It has substantive impact upon the life of the people. It is a vital process charged with implementation of pre-determined, welfare oriented, and developmental objectives.


 It was born in 1887 as a discipline,not as an activity because as an activity as mentioned in my previous blog,public administration is as old as human existence itself. Woodrow Wilson's thought provoking and revolutionary paper 'The Study Of Administration' in the Political Science Quarterly brought it along and that's why he is considered the founder of this discipline. Public Administration is a combination of both theory and practice. As a discipline it studies and analyses the machinery and procedure of government while formulating and implementing policies and that analysis/study gives birth to new ideas,which are then applied to the activity of govt to test the practicality as to whether it increases efficiency. Therefore they both are interdependent. There are five stages in the chronology of the evolution of Public Administration as a discipline:
Stage 1: Politics administration dichotomy (1887-1926) Stage2: Principles of administration (1927-1937) Stage 3: Era of challenge (1938-1947) Stage 4: Crises of identity (1948-1970) Stage 5: Public policy perspective (1971 onwards) The first stage was the manifestation of Woodrow Wilson's view of politics - administration dichotomy( difference between two things as they are completely opposite). This led to a spurt in the interest of its studies in various American as well as universities around the globe
and reforms were made in government and thus scholars were attracted to public administration with a new vigour. Woodrow Wilson propogated this view since at that time people were fed up with the govt. and its various policies,rampant corruption and the spoils system that prevailed in the bureaucratic framework. This was the major reason for people to readily lap up his view. L.D. White published a book '' Introduction to the Study Of Public Administration'' in 1926 that further buttressed this view. The second stage of administrative theory was marked by the same fervour of reinforcing the Wilsonian view of Public Administration of publi-administration dichotomy and evolve a value neutral or rather value free science of management. It was believed that there are certain principles ( guiding/basic ideas) of administration that are common to all organizations and will work for all bringing out optimum efficiency. This was the mature Industrial Revolution period and all that countries were concerned with was increasing production at any cost in order to earn big. Also Industrial revolution's rapid expansion of industries led to new problems in management that were uforeseen and therefore difficult to solve. That's when F.W. Taylor and Henri Fayol stepped in and generated their principles of administration/management. They were succesful administrators in their own right and therefore their views hel a lot of water and were readily accepted by the industies world over. Frederich Winslow Taylor and Henri Fayol advocated for adopting engineering based scientific methods in the field of industrial work process in order to increase efficiency and economy. These schools of thought are grouped under the Classical theory of administration. Since,we are talking about the Classical theorists of Administration we have to make a very important mention of Max Weber. His conceptual framework of bureaucracy deserves special mention as it brought about a paradigm shift in the theory of public administration. He was the first to provide the discipline with a solid theoretical base. He viewed bureaucracy as a national rules based central system that regulated the organization's structure and process accordingly to technical knowledge and maximum efficiency. He was concerned about the evolution of modern civilization with bureaucracies. All the three theorists mentioned above laid emphasis on the physiological and mechanistic aspects of public administration and that is why this school of thought apart from being called the Clasiical school of thought is also known as the Mechanical theory of organization/administration. The third stage in the evolution of the theory of public administration is known as the era of challenge because the above mentioned principles and iron cage/mechanistic view of
administration and workers was challenged. The Human relations theory brought about a pragmatic view to administrative issues. It emphasisied on the human aspects of administration that sprung from the Hawthorne experiments conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues at Harvard Business School in the late 20's and early 30's of the twentieth century. The main focus of study in this approach was to study the psychological and social problems of the industrial workers. The scholars of this theory identified variables like informal organisation,leadership,morale and motivation for maximum use of human resources in industries. This led to a far vast study by Herbert Simon and others that developed the Behavioural Science theory. The behavioural science school of thought propogated by Herbert Simon challenged the principles of admiistration and its mechanistic ways as mere proverbs where one contradicted the other and thus are nothing more than general statements based on person to person experience and lacking a theoretical foudation. Herbert Simon advocated that decision analysis is what should be studied as decision making is the heart of administration where a decision has to be taken at each and every stage of administration day in and day out and administration is a series of decisions that lead to implementation and nothing more. According to Simon if administrative behaviour in an organisational setting has to be anaysed,then that can only be done by studying the decisions taken by the administrators. Chester Barnard and Edwin Stene were other two remarkable theorists of the Behavioural school. The next stage that is the crisis of identity stage is set in the late 20th century where many parts of the world were just out of wars and colonisation called the developing nations. This phase marked a debate for the return of values in Public administration and cross cultural as well as cross national study of administration. The US also faced a host of crisis in the 1960's and the traditional public adminsitration failed to answer a lot of questions to provide solutions to the problems. Thus grew a need to reinvent public administration and lead to a question as to whether public administration that had been known as it is till then was relevant anymore. Thus was born the concept of ' New Public Administration' courtesy Dwight Waldo from the First Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 attended by young scholars and practitioners of Public Administration. These were the second generation behaviouralists as per George Frederickson who was a very important part of the FIrst Minnowbrook Conference and the main convenor of the 2nd Minnowbrook conference 20 years later in 1988. It laid stress on values in public administration and a commitedness by administrators and scholars of the discipline towards value formulation and their implementation. It
developed the thought of society and its welfare as the main goal of public administration in today's times through the public policy approach. It brought democratic humanism and client orientation as well as the science perspective in New Public Administration. The collapse of the SOviet Union also strengthened this view. Public Policy theory,the next stage in the development of Public Administration theory. Public policy is an attempt by a government to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertinent to the problem at hand. It is policy that is made for the welfare of the people and their development. As a discipline public policy perspective is the study of govt. policies for the people and its pros and cons and how to better the same. Here it has come closer to political science again and also has incorporated many management principles to help public administration cope up with the dynamics of its discipline and conduct. So these were the various stages of Public Administration's evolution as a discipline.


: Under LPG the bureaucracy has to play an open and competitive role as the policy of LPG affects the role, values and skills of public bureaucracy. Liberalisation is the withdrawal of all direct controls of the govt on the economic sectors through deregulation, relicensing and decontrol of pricing and distribution of products and services. Privatisation is the transfer of public ownership to private ownership that will help lead to efficiency and encourage investment that will eventually help in development of infrastructure and social programmes. Globalisation is the opening up of world trade thus converting the world into a global village or global market. Therefore, under these new reforms Public Administration has to very fairly play the role of a enabler, collaborator, facilitator, co-operation, partnering(through public-pvt partnership in various sectors like telecom, airlines, electricity etc),regulating the market and directly handling sensitive depts. such as defence, law and order, atomic energy and foreign policy. And with regards to social programmes and policies effective implementation it can partner up with various NGO's and charity organisations.


 Growth of science and technology has brought about a period of stress as well as development in the field of Public Administration both as an art(way of conducting and
actually doing the activities of Public Administration by administrators) and as a science( academics, field of study for students and scholars). The recent trends are: 1) Public - Private Partnership : Though the differences in public and pvt. administration one must not forget that if they both team up viz. their respective strengths it can lead to the best of both worlds. Public administration brings in its expertise on social issues and policies and pvt admin brings in its specialisation on management and how to improve efficiency to achieve the pre-set goals by the public policy. 2) Public Administration In Policy making: Public administration as we all know very well can never be separated from policy formulation but nowadays it is becoming all the more dominant and is easily seen. Civil services can give shape to stated policies through exercise of choice and judgement in administering them and secondly they are engaged in policy formulation through their suggestive, analytical and interpretative roles. 3) Movement towards political economy: Recently economists have developed new methods of analysing the cost and benefits of govt. programmes and administrators are choosing more and more economics as a base of public admin than political science. 4) New emerging goals of Public Administration: Efficiency( read. Technical Efficiency) and effectiveness are the ultimate goals of Public Administration. 5) Staff and line units are complimentary, not antagonistic. Line agencies are the field work agencies and staff units are the technically specialised co-ordination and facilitating agencies between upper management from where decisions come and the line agencies who implement them first hand. 6) Human Relations approach in Public Administration: Its main orientation is towards change in attitudes, values and structures of organisations. 7) People's participation decision making: minority groups and poor as well are now getting their share. 8) Decentralisation: Panchayats and Municipal corporations constitutional status. 9) Emerging changes in bureaucratic pattern and behaviour: It emphasis upon formal structure, hierarchy and efficiency. It is the most important in a democratic form of govt for
development of the welfare of the people. It is centrally involved in change and transformation of society. Recently there has been a growth and spread of new management techniques in public administration. It is concerned with human goals now like : life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The new public administration is concerned about social equity sensitivity to human suffering and social needs.

                                                                                UNIT – II


Scientific Management Approach is one of the important approaches in the field of administrative theory. This theory came in the wake of new industrial revolution that has taken place during the later part of the nineteenth century. Scientific Management approach is an attempt to solve the problems of complex organisations that have emerged as a result of industrial development. Frederick Winslow Taylor is generally regarded as the pioneer of the scientific management approach, which paved way for the modern management approaches and techniques.
F.W. Taylor was born in a German town in Pennsylvania on March 20, 1856. He received education in France and Germany. He also received Mechanical Engineering degree from Stevens Institute of Technology of Hoboken, New Jersey. At the age of eighteen he joined the Enterprise Hydraulic Works, Philadelphia and served as apprentice for four years. In 1878 he went to work at Midvale Steel Company as a labourer and he became the Chief Engineer of that company in 1884. He became General Manager of Manufacturing Investment Company in 1890. In 1893 he opened an office in New York as a consulting engineer.
As an engineer he is instrumental in the development of new technologies, he invented several tools to increase the production. Some of the important tools he developed were cutting tool, a heat-treating tool, a steel hammer, hydraulic power loading machinery, boring and turning mills etc. He was always interested in improving upon the techniques of management. He emphasised on the scientific way of developing the tools as well as scientific way of performing the job. He has passion for efficiency and scientific way of work in the organisations.
The major writings of Taylor are, A Piece Rate System (1885), Shop Management (1903), The Art of Cutting Metals (1906), The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) and The Testimony before a Special Committee of the House of Representatives (1912).
To overcome the deficiencies in the management Taylor formulated four new principles / new duties to be assumed by the management which are known as the principles of scientific management. They are:
1. The development of a true science of work
2. The scientific selection of workmen and their progressive development
3. Bringing together of science of work and the scientifically selected workers
4. The equal division of work and the responsibility between management and workers
1 The Development of a True Science of Work
Taylor believed that there is a need to develop science of work. He further believed that there is one ‘best way’ of doing every job. This can be achieved by systematic study of any work and replacing the old thumb-rule method by developing a scientific method. This requires gathering mass of traditional knowledge, recording it, tabulating it and in many cases finally reducing it to laws rules and even to mathematical formulae. And later these laws and rules are to be applied to the everyday work of all workmen of the organisation. The scientific method of work saves worker from unnecessary criticism of the boss and the management to get maximum work from worker. It also results in establishing a ‘large daily task’ to be done by the qualified workers under the optimum conditions.
2 Scientific Selection and Progressive Development of Workmen
To ensure effective performance of the scientifically developed work there is a need to select the workers on scientific basis. It is the duty of the management to study the character, the nature and the performance of each worker with a view to finding out his limitations and possibilities for his development. Taylor believed that every worker has potentialities for development. Every worker must be systematically and thoroughly trained. Scientific selection involves selecting a right person for a right job. It is also necessary to ensure that the employee accepts the new methods, tools and conditions willingly and enthusiastically. There should be opportunities for advancement to do the job to the fullest realisation of his normal capabilities.
4.5.3 Bringing together of Science of Work and Scientifically Selected Workers
The third principle of the scientific management is bringing of science of work and scientifically selected and trained workmen together. Taylor says ‘bringing together
advisedly because you may develop all the science that you please and you may scientifically select and train workmen just as much as you please, but unless some men bring the science and workmen together all your labour will be lost’. Taylor felt it is exclusive responsibility of the management to do this job. He believed that workers are always willing to cooperate with the management but there is more opposition from the side of management.
4.5.4 Division of Work and Responsibility between Worker and Management
Traditionally the worker bears the entire responsibility of the work and the management has lesser responsibility. But Taylor emphasised on equal responsibility between worker and management. This division creates understanding and mutual dependence between them. This results in elimination of conflict and mistrust between the worker and management. Taylor thinks that scientific management can be justly and truthfully characterised as management in which harmony is the rule rather than discord.


In addition to the above four basic principles Taylor also expressed the concern for the following in the scientific management method. They are:
• Mental Revolution
• Functional Foremanship
• Work Study and Work Measurement
• Standardisation of Tools
• Selection and Training of Workers
• Task Prescription
• Incentive Schemes
• Work as an Individual Activity
• Trade Unions
• Development of Management Thinking
 Division of Work
Mental Revolution: Taylor was of the view that scientific management requires a great revolution that takes place in the mental attitude of management as well as the workers. Instead of focusing more on the division of surplus they should together turn their attention towards increasing the size of the surplus until the surplus become so large that it becomes unnecessary to quarrel over how it should be divided. Both should stop pulling one another and instead both should work together in the same direction to increase the surplus. They
should realise that the friendly cooperation and mutual help results in increasing the surplus. Once the surplus increases there is ample scope for increasing the wages for the workers and increase in profits for the management. It is along this a complete change in the mental attitude of both the sides is required. Taylor further emphasised that the scientific management involves change in the attitude of the workers and the management with regard to their duties and responsibilities and towards their fellow workers. It demands the realisation of the fact that their mutual interest is not antagonistic and mutual prosperity is possible only through mutual cooperation. The principle object of management is to secure maximum prosperity for the employer as well as the employee. Taylor believed that there is no conflict in the interest of employees, workers and consumers. His major concern was that the results of higher productivity should equally benefit the employer, worker and consumer.
Functional Foremanship: Taylor is critical of linear system of organisation in which each worker is subordinated to only one boss. He replaced this system with what is called functional foremanship. In the functional foremanship the worker receives orders from eight different specialised supervisors. Thus he divided work not only among the workers but also at the supervisory level. Out of the eight functional supervisors, four functional foreman, namely the gang boss, the repair boss, the speed boss and the inspector will look after the execution of work and the remaining four will take care of planning aspects. They are the route clerk, the instruction clerk, the time and cost clerk and the shop displinarian. Through this functional foreman system Taylor wanted to create the narrowly specialised supervisor for each type of skilled work. He thought this will result in efficiency rather than one supervisor looking after all the activities. He further believed that in this type of organisation a foreman can be trained quickly and specialisation became easy.
Work Study and Work Measurement: Taylor advocated the need for systematic study of work. The use of time study can help us in finding out the optimal way of study carrying out a task. He considered it as an essential component of scientific management. It involves measuring and studying the ‘unit times’. Taylor conducted several studies to find out the standard unit of work to be carried out by an individual worker. He studied each and every movement of the worker in performing a particular task with the help of a stopwatch. By studying each and every movement of the work we can eliminate the unnecessary movements of the workers and find out the time required for the each movement. With the help of time study and work-study it is possible to perform a particular task with a lesser movement. The purpose of work-study is to eliminate not only unnecessary movements but also to eliminate

the slow movements and fatigue of the workers there by it is possible to find out ‘the best way’ of performing each activity.
Standardisation of Tools: Taylor maintained that in addition to determining the best methods, the management also should standardize the tools in the light of the needs of the specific jobs. In an experiment at Bethleham Steel Works on shovelling of coal, Taylor found that the average shovel load varied from 16 to 38 pounds. Further experiments showed that good workers were able to shovel more tones per day if they used a shovel carrying the load of 21 to 22 pounds. Subsequently Taylor found that with the different types of materials to be shovelled, about 15 different types of shovels were needed. From then on when workers arrived in the morning they received written instructions on what to shovel and what type of shovel to be used. After three and half years 140 men were doing the work formerly handled by 400 to 600 workers. This shows that by using a proper instrument for each type of work we can achieve more work with the help of less number of workers.
Selection and Training of Workers: Taylor insisted that each worker should be given the job for which he was best suited. According to Taylor ‘one of the very first requirements of the worker who is fit to handle the pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental makeup the ox than any other type’ (cited in Bertram Gross, 1964, p.123). Taylor further felt that “there is work for each type of man, just as for instance, there is work for the dry horse and work for the trotting horse. There is no type of work, however, that suits all types of man” (Bertram Gross, p.123). It is therefore essential to find the realistic ways of judging their capacities of different workers. The management should give them formal training and clear instructions on precisely how to perform the prescribed motions with the standardized tools and materials. (Bertram Gross, p.124)
Task Prescription: Not only the tasks be divided and optimal methods of achieving the tasks be prescribed, the worker should also be given clear description of what he should do. Here Taylor emphasises that the tasks should be well planned in advance and the worker be given clear instructions concerning his particular task to be done. Proper task prescription will provide clarity to the worker as well as the management.
Incentive Scheme: Taylor suggested that the pay should be linked to the piece of work done by the worker. Payment should depend upon his achieving the prescribed output. In the event of achieving a greater output, then a bonus payment should be made to the worker. The bonus
paid should be generous and consistent. This system will provide encouragement to the workers to produce more.
Work as an Individual Activity: Taylor is always opposed to any kind of group activity. He believes that people are motivated by personal ambition, and that once put into a group the individual looses his individual drive. He believes that the influence of the group makes one produce less. Further he argued that female workers were prone to such personal pressures and indeed separated them in such a way that verbal interaction was impossible. (Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980.p.89).
Trade Unions: Since Taylor was critical of group activity he was also against trade union movement. He regarded trade unions as unnecessary under his system of work. The employer according to him was on the same side of the workers. The goal of the workers and the employers is the same. Acceptance of scientific management principles would reduce conflict between workers and the management. Sincemanagement itself laid down what was the ‘fair day’s pay’ for fair day’s work through objective rationale means, the need for trade unions does not arise.
Development of Management Thinking: Taylor through scientific management saw the development of management as a science. It implies that specific laws could be derived for management practice and those laws relate specifically to wage rates and ways of doing work. Arriving at these laws involved management in the use of scientific method.
Division of Work: Taylor felt that not only there should be a division of labor on a shop floor but also the division of work between the worker and management. According to Taylor the main function of management should be planning for future. The responsibility of worker is to concentrate totally on carrying out the given task. He believed that there were distinct personality types for performing planning function and doing function. The planning function relates to the managements and doing function relates to the workers. He also recommended minute division of tasks for each individual in the organisation.


Though scientific management became a movement and offered solutions to some of the industrial problems, it was equally opposed and criticised by many people. The scientific management has emerged at a time when capitalist development had reached the stage of requiring organisational changes in the functioning of industrial enterprise. Hence it is considered more as a pro-capitalist theory. The critics considered that the scientific
management helped more the owners of industries than the workers. The trade unions were against scientific management methods. They considered Taylorism as not only destroying trade unionism but also destroying principles of collective bargaining. They felt that the scientific management was a menace to the community at large as it causes continuous increase in unemployment. Trade unions felt that Taylor was more interested in mechanical aspects of work and not much concerned about the total work situation. As a result there were a number of agitations by labour unions in America, which led the American Congress in 1912 to appoint a special committee of the House of Representatives to investigate in to Taylorism. The trade unions in 1915 succeeded in getting an amendment to the Army Appropriation Act forbidding the use of stopwatches or the payment of premiums or bonuses in army arsenals.
A still stronger attack was made by the investigation conducted by Professor Robert Hoxie on industrial relations. The Hoxie Report concluded that the approach of Taylor and his associates dealt only with mechanical and not with the human aspects of production.
A strong criticism came from Harry Braverman who in his book ‘Labour and Monopoly Capital’ (1974) argued that an analysis of Taylor’s work enables us to distinguish three general principles of scientific management (Clegg and Dunkerly, 1980). They are:
The principle of dissociation of labour process from the skills of the workers: The Taylorism in other wards results in separation of worker from the knowledge that the worker might poses, particularly that knowledge deriving from a craft or traditional process. Now the labour process therefore is dependent upon managerial practices rather than worker abilities.
The principle of separation of conception from execution: By this Braverman refers to the division under the scientific management of manual and mental labour. The implementation of Taylorism leads to a situation where the organisation of work is the prerogative of the management where as the worker has to simply execute the work. In other words this is separation of ‘mind’ from the ‘hand’. Those who work with hand and those who work with mind are two separate entities. This results in alienation of labour from the labour process. The principle of use of monopoly over knowledge to control each step of labour process and its mode of execution: This principle is logically derived from the pervious two. It shows that the Taylorism results in the managerial section monopolising the knowledge of
work and controlling the worker in each and every aspect of execution of the work. This results in domination of managerial class over the workers.
Several others criticised scientific management. Even the managers at that time were critical of scientific methods. They did not appreciate his comments on ‘thumb-rule’ methods. Managers were opposed to the Taylor’s ideas of training programmes for the managers. It is interesting to note that Taylor had to resign from Midvale Steel Works and Bethlehem Steel Company because of the differences with the company managers.
The other critics of Taylor’s scientific management include Oliver Sheldon, Mary Parker Follette, Elton Mayo, Peter Drucker and others. They charged that Taylor’s scientific management was impersonal and underemphasised the human factor. This criticism led to a series of experiments in industrial sociology and social psychology. The studies of Elton Mayo and other researchers on human relations have rejected Taylorism. Taylor’s philosophy that men were generally lazy and try to avoid work has also been criticised.
Another criticism of Taylor is that he did not properly understand the anatomy of work. His emphasis on minute division of work was criticised on several grounds. Firstly, the work gets de-personalised and the worker becomes a mere cog in the machine. The worker lacks the sense of participation in the work; the worker has no outlets to exhibit all his potentialities. Secondly, Taylorism may lead to automation of workers, which may have psychological consequences. Peter Drucker, management expert, aptly says that the organisation became a piece of poor engineering judged by the standards of human relations as well as those of productive efficiency and output.
Taylor’s functional foremanship was criticised by many saying that it will lead to confusion when each worker kept under the control of eight supervisors. A worker may not be able to satisfy eight supervisors in all the aspects.


The human relations movement emerged in the late 1930s as an outgrowth of scientific management. This movement came from number of sources: psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists who were critical of the narrow and limited concept of organisation held by the scholars who contributed to the classical theory. They were mainly againstthe de-humanisation of organisation and against treating human beings as cogs in the machine.
However, a major change in organisation theory came after the results of the Hawthorne experiments, conducted by Elton Mayo and others during the 1920s. It made two significant contributions in organisation and management. These are:
• It posed a challenge to the physical or engineering approach to motivation;
• The first real assault was made on the purely structural, hierarchical approach to the organisation


George Elton Mayo is considered as one of the pioneers of the human relations approach to organisation. His main hypothesis is that relations between employers and employees should be humanistic, not mechanistic. Employees and workers deserve to be treated as individuals with dignity and self-respect rather than as factors of production or inter-changeable elements of the production system. He looked upon industrial organisations as psychosocial systems with primary emphasis on human resources, their behaviour and welfare, needs and satisfactions, interactions and co-operation. He focussed his attention on the behaviour of the workers and their production capacity keeping in view physical, economic and psychological aspects. He called this approach a clinical method. He has published books and contributed a number of research articles.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Harvard Business School, under the leadership of Elton Mayo and his associates, conducted research at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company. This research marked a landmark in organisation theory. Described in detail in the landmark volume, ‘Management and the Worker’, Mayo’s work research led to the first systematic conception of organisations as social systems, and destroyed some of the basic assumptions of the machine model. In all, four studies were undertaken.
Early Experiment
Before studies at the Hawthorne plant, Mayo undertook his first research in a textile mill, which came to be known as first enquiry. He started this research in a textile mill near Philadelphia in 1923. The employees of the mill were provided with all facilities, by the management, which was highly enlightened and humane. The mill was considered to be a model organisation. The general labour turnover (absenteeism) in all the departments was estimated to be approximately 5 per cent per annum while in the mule-spinning department the turnover was approximately 250 per cent. To cope up with this problem of high labour turnover, a number of incentives were provided to the employees in this department. Despite
incentives, the labour turnover did not come down. Elton Mayo studied the problem of the mule-spinning department.
On the basis of the information collected through his study, Mayo diagnosed the problem as one of lack of adequate rest which was causing fatigue to the workers. He introduced rest periods. The scheme motivated the workers and the labour turnover almost came to an end. In addition, the production rose and the morale of the workers also improved. Encouraged by results, Mayo suggested a new formula to earn bonus under this scheme, if the workers were to produce more than a certain percentage, they would earn bonus proportionate to their extra production. With this scheme i.e. rest periods and new bonus the workers were highly motivated and happy.
In his first experiment Mayo concentrated his attention on fatigue, accidents, production levels, rest periods, working conditions, etc.
One of the important decisions the Management took was that control of rest periods was placed squarely in the hands of workers. This led to consultations among the workers. Social interaction was set in motion. A new awakening began. Workers began taking collective decisions. With this, the assumption of ‘rabble hypothesis’, which assumes ‘mankind as a horde of unorganised individuals actuated by self-interest’ was reversed.
Hawthorne Studies
There was a strong feeling that there exists a clear-cut cause and effect relationship between the physical work, environment, the well-being and productivity of the worker. If proper ventilation, temperature, lighting, improvement in other physical working conditions, and wage incentive schemes, are provided to the workers, in turn they will produce more, was the opinion of the management. Taking this clue into consideration the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science under the leadership George Pennock decided to examine the relationship between illumination and the efficiency of the worker with a research programme at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric Company (WEC). The WEC employed 30,000 men and women. Here we will know more about this Western Electric Company the reason being why this has been selected for research. The WEC, located in Chicago, was engaged mainly in the manufacture of telephone apparatus. The employees of WEC were drawn from 60 nationalities, representing a typical cross section of American population. Moreover, within each of the national groups there was a wide variety of skills. These were the main factors which attracted the research academy to take up the research study.
Great Illumination Experiment (1924-27)
In the first study, it was based on parallel observation of two groups of operatives, one a test group and the other control group, engaged in a task related to the production of electrical equipment took part in these tests. The study was designed to examine the level of production on the basis of varying levels of illumination. The control group remained with constant illumination of the level and the type with which the two groups started. Where as in the test group’s room, experimental changes were introduced periodically. Then slowly the conditions of work were changed to mark the effect of this change on the output. The researchers observed the groups and kept accurate records of production. The research, spread over a period of two years, established that regardless of the level of illumination, production in both the control and experimental groups increased. The researchers were surprised and abandoned the illumination theory and began manipulating wage payments, rest periods, duration of working hours. Instead of group incentives plan, an individual piece rate plan and provision of refreshments were introduced. All yielded a further rise in production. Surprised by the outcome, the research team decided to withdraw all the above-mentioned privileges and return to the conditions prevailing at the beginning of these experiments. For a while the output fell a little, but soon it rose to a point higher then at any other time. The research team was totally puzzled over the outcome. The illumination hypothesis was rejected, the relationship between incentive scheme, rest periods, etc., had no apparent relevance to the productivity per se. The research team came to conclusion that it might be due to the interest shown by the research team in the workers or to the incentive wage plan that was retained while several other privileges were withdrawn.
In 1927 Mayo was invited to unravel the problem through further studies. In these studies Mayo collaborated with Fritz Jules Roethlisberger. After interpreting the outcome of the Hawthorne studies Mayo was of opinion that the test room girls became a social unit and because of the increased attention of the research team to them, the unit developed a sense of participation in the project. Then they picked up the loose threads of the earlier WEC studies and found far more valuable insights into the industrial man. After eliminating various explanations they proposed the following two hypotheses to explain the failure of the original illumination project:
• The first hypothesis: the individual wage payment incentive had stimulated increase in the output.
• The second hypothesis: the changes in supervisory techniques had improved the attitudes and output.
Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment (1927-1932)

To test the above two hypotheses, two new groups were formed. They were placed in a special test room, apart from all the other workers. The group were placed on anindividual incentive plan on a piecework basis. Initially the total output went up and after sometime it remained constant. The second group, although they were placed on individual incentive plan, was experimented with variations in rest periods and duration of work. Changes in the output were recorded.
In this group there was an average rise of output in the production over a period of 14 months. The research team concluded that the first hypothesis was not confirmed since it was not wages, but something else that led to greater output in the both groups.
To test the second hypothesis, the atmosphere was made more relaxed and congenial. The girls were allowed to interact freely with fellow workers and supervisors. Supervisors were told to behave more as democratic oriented supervisors. The other important factor was that managerial practices were modified. Before any change or move, the workers were consulted and advised about changes, their suggestions were also considered sympathetically. The workers responded favourably to the improved style of supervision. This had led to a feeling that they were a team of individuals, not cogs in a machine, allowed the workers to feel free to air their problems and they established new interpersonal contacts with their fellow workers and supervisions. Such work satisfaction led everyone to feel more valued and responsible for his or her performance and that of the group as a whole. The production increased when work groups felt that they were important and their efforts were meaningful.
Mayo felt that work satisfaction depends to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the working group. He said that change in the style of supervision improved the morale of worker, which in turn increased production. This link between supervision, morale and productivity became the corner stone of the human relations
Human Attitudes and Sentiments (1928-31)
The next study of Mayo and his team, conducted during 1928-31, was on human attitudes and sentiments. The workers were given an opportunity to come out and express freelyand frankly about their likes and dislikes on the programmes and policies of the management, working conditions, how they were treated by their boss, etc. They interviewed over 20,000 workers, each one given an adequate time to comment or complain on his or her own
thoughts on any aspect of employment or condition. Later, these complaints were analysed and it was found that there was no correlation between the nature of complaints and the facts. Although no reforms were introduced, the workers thought that in view of their complaints the working conditions were improved. They also felt that the wages were better although the wage scale remained at the same level. It appeared that there was an opportunity to ‘let off steam’ which made the workers feel better even though there was no material change in the environment.
The study team of Mayo and Roethlisberger identified the following two aspects:
• First, the workers appreciated the method of collecting the information on the problems of the company from them. They thought they had valuable comments to offer and felt elated on the feeling that they had an equal status with management. They also realised that they were allowed to express themselves freely and felt satisfied with it. They also entertained a feeling that the conditions in the environment were changed to the better although no such change took place.
• Second, there was a change in the attitude of the supervisors because they realised that the research team closely observed their methods of supervision and the subordinates were allowed to comment freely about their supervisors.
Mayo and his team finally led to the conclusion that the explanation for these unexpected findings lay in the informal social forces at work in the organisation. They became convinced that the behaviour of workers cannot be separated from their feelings and sentiments, which are the products of the individual’s personal history and his or her social situation in the organisation. Therefore, to explain behaviour in the workplace, it was necessary to move beyond the limited idea that organisation was simply an economicand technological structure; the organisation was also to be seen as a social structure, “an intricate web of human relations bound together by a system of sentiments”.
Social Organisation (1931-32)
This was the last study undertaken by Elton Mayo and his team in Western Electric Company to observe a group of workers performing a task in a natural setting. It is a detailed study of a social organisation and the operation of intra-group forces within a work group. Three groups of workmen whose work was inter-related were chosen for observation. It was known as ‘The Bank Wiring Experiment’. In this experiment, wages were paid on the basis of a group incentive plan, and each member got his share on the basis of the total output of the group.
The research team found that the workers evolved its own norm of standard output, which was lower than the management target. The group, according to its standard plan, did not allow its members to increase or decrease the output. Although they were capable of producing more, the output was held down to maintain uniform rate of output. The work group developed a highly integrated social structure and used informal pressure to set right the deviant members. The following code of conduct was maintained for their group solidarity:
• One should not turn out too much work. If one does he is a ‘rate buster’.
• One should not turn out too little work. If one does he is a ‘chesler’.
• One should not tell a supervisor anything negative about an associate. If one does he is a ‘squealer’.
• One should not attempt to maintain social distance or act officious. If one is an inspector, for example, he should not act like one.
After the study Mayo and his team identified the following views of the workers:
• The workers felt that the behaviour of the research team had nothing to do with the management or general economic conditions of the plant.
 The workers viewed the interference of the extra departmental personnel, such as ‘efficiency men’ and other ‘technologists’ as disturbance.
• They thought that the experts follow the logic of efficiency with a constraint on their group activity.
• The supervisors as a separate category represented authority, to discipline the workers.
• The logic of efficiency did not go well with the logic of sentiments, which had become the cornerstone of ‘social system’.
The Mayo and his team concluded that:
• One should not miss the human aspect of organisations, while emphasising technical and economic aspects of the industries.
• The Hawthorne experience suggested a new mix of managerial skills. In addition to technical skills, the management should handle human situations, motivate, lead and communicate with the workers.
• They also felt that overemphasis on the technical progress and material life at the expense of social and human life was not good.
• The concept of authority should be based on social skills in securing cooperation rather than expertise.
Harmony between the informal social system and the formal organisation is the key concept in Mayo’s approach to human relations. An internal equilibrium has to be established and maintained in the organisation. The logic of organisation behaviour is primarily non-rational in economic terms; it is more social and psychological in its roots. Accordingly, management would have to develop diagnostic skills and the capacity to deal effectively with the dynamics of informal groups and the sentiments of the workers.


• The results of the Hawthorne experiments and subsequent studies led to the discovery of the informal organisation and to the inference that the social and psychological factors at work place are the major determinants of workers’ satisfaction and organisational output. However, Fritz Roethilsberger, the principal research associate of Mayo, arrived at different conclusion. According to him the Hawthorne studies reveal that the primary group had as much, if not greater, impact upon productivity as the formally physical surroundings and economic benefits derived from the job.
• Nigro and Nigro remark that, it was upon the foundations laid by discoveries of Mayo’s team that the human relations schools or movement of later years was constructed. Negro et al continue: “On the applied level, the movement’s objectives were to provide management with social and psychological insights needed to diagnose problems rooted in the informal organisation and to devise the appropriate interventions”. Great emphasis was thus placed on the development of human relations skills, which would help supervisors to effectively bridge the gap between the informal and formal organisations.
Based on the Hawthorne studies, scholars have identified the following concepts:
• Social Norms: The level of organisational effectiveness is determined by social norms. Principles of administration such as division of work or the physiological capability of the worker are not critical factors in productivity.
• The Group: Group standards are a major influence on the behaviour of individuals in organisations; workers do not act or react as individuals, but they do as members of the group. Groups set standards of productivity and enforce them upon all members. The group also provides a shield against executive reprisals. In both ways, the informal group acts as a restraint on executive power.
• Rewards and Sanctions: Instead of economic incentives, non-economic rewards such as social rewards and group sanctions are the strong job motivators. They play significant role in guiding the behaviour of the workers.
• Supervision: Supervision is most effective when the supervisors involve and consult the group and its informal leaders in order to ensure their acceptance of organisational objectives. Human relations scholars believe that effective communication, supplemented by a willingness to allow workers to participate in decision-making, is the key to effective supervision.
• Democratic Administration: Workers achieve the highest level of effectiveness when they are allowed to manage their own affairs without bossism from their formal supervisors.
From the various studies conducted by the human relations school the following essentials of theory emerge:
• Workers are basically social beings and they must first be understood as people if they are to be understood as organisation members. Their attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by social demands from both inside and outside the work situation.
• Work is a group activity. Workers may react to management, the organisation, and work itself as members of groups of informal organisations rather than as individuals.
• The need for recognition, security and sense of belonging is more important in determining a worker’s morale and productivity than the physical ability or stamina and the physical conditions under which he/she works. In other words, productivity is strongly affected by social and psychological factors, not simply by conditions of work.
• Non-economic factors, i.e. social rewards and sanctions are significant determinants of worker’s motivation and their level of job satisfaction. Economic incentives, by contrast, are less powerful as motivators on the job.
 Informal groups (i.e., natural groupings of the people in the work situation) within the work plant exercise strong social controls over the work habits and attitudes of the individual worker. Group standards strongly influence the behaviour of individuals in organisations.
 The most effective style of supervision is created when the managers consult the work groups and their informal leaders before introducing every change in the work schedule. Subsequent theorists of the human relations school have called this participative management. This style of management allows the workers to influence decisions that affect them and leads to the highest level of effectiveness on the part of the workers. It not only
prevents the alienation of workers, but also helps to win their acceptance of organisational goals.


Behaviour studies are studies of human behaviour through interdisciplinary approach drawing knowledge from various social science disciplines. The objective of the behavioural approach is to understand human behaviour in the organisation. After the second world war the behavioural approach to public administration emerged as a protest against the inadequacy and unscientific nature of traditional approaches. In the field of administrative behaviour, the major studies have been on bureaucracy, human relations, motivation and decision-making. Herbert A. Simon’s contribution has been particularly significant in the field of decision-making.
In recognition of his outstanding contribution in analysing the decision-making process, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978. Simon asserts that we all know that every administrative activity involves both “deciding” (decision) and “doing” (action), it has not commonly been recognised that a theory of administration should be concerned with the processes of decision as well as with the processes of action. This process is known as decision-making process.
Simon feels that the neglect of this process perhaps stems from the notion that decision-making is confined to the formulations of overall policy. On the contrary, the process of decision does not come to an end when the general purpose of an organisation has been determined. The task of “deciding” pervades the entire administrative organisation quite as much as does the task of “doing” – indeed, it is integrally tied up with the latter. According to Simon, unlike the principles, which have a contextual relevance, the decision-making, is a universal process and hence can form the base for wider organisational analysis.
Stages in the decision-making process
Simon explains that decision-making is a process of problem definition, of development alternatives, appraisal of alternatives and selection of solution. Thus, according to Simon, the following stages are involved in administrative decision-making:
Identification of Problem
This activity involves finding occasions to take decisions. For this the executive has to analyse and understand the organisational environment. He has to begin with the identification of the problem to be solved. Recognition of such a problem establishes the need for a decision. Problem determination involves intelligence activity.
Search for Alternatives
Once the problem to be solved has been recognised, the administrator begins the search for all various possible courses or strategies or alternatives and identifies the merits and advantages as well as problems involved in each of the alternatives, which would achieve the solution to the defined problem. This second step is called the design activity.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Once alternatives have been developed, the administrator begins the third step: critically evaluating the different consequences and costs of all the alternative courses available.
Selection of Solution
The last step in the decision-making process takes place when the strengths and weaknesses of all the alternatives have been ascertained. The final step is the selection of the most appropriate available alternative, which enables the attainment of objectives at lowest cost. This is called the choice activity.
The four steps in the decision-making process mentioned above require certain skills such as judgement, creativity, quantitative analysis and experience. Although a small fraction of time is spent in choosing between alternatives, a substantial chunk is spending on other related activities in the decision-making process.


Simon’s decision-making formula assumes that the rational administrator has perfect knowledge of the possible courses of action and their consequences and has equal access to the relevant information on all or any of them. But, this is rarely the case in the real world because administrators operate in the face of numerous limitations in decision-making activities. The various limitations, which stem from the decision-maker’s deficiencies in knowledge about various things and the structural arrangement of the organisations, are as follows:
The decision-maker rarely knows the full range of possible solutions to the defined problem.
• His knowledge of the consequences of each possible alternative strategy is limited.
• His information is inadequate.
• His lacks sufficient time to examine fully each possibility and its consequences.
• Lack of knowledge about the future events in which the decision will be operating.
• Decision-maker’s habits, personal beliefs, and intellectual capacity.
• The influence, conventions, and behavioural norms of informal groups.
• Organisational factors such as the rules and procedures of formal organisation, its channels of communication, etc.
• External pressures.
Looking at the above, we note that in the simpler situations analysing the sequence is easier and, therefore, a better and rational decision is possible. In complex situations, which involve a large network of decisions in different phases, rationality in the decision-making is bound to suffer. But Simon emphasises that all decision-making should be based on rational choices. He defines rationality as one “concerned with the relation of a preferred behaviour alternative in terms of some system of values whereby the consequences of behaviour can be evaluated”. This requires that the decision maker should have knowledge about all available alternatives. The decision maker should also be able to anticipate the consequences of each of the alternatives. Simon explains that there are six different types of rationality viz., objective, subjective, conscious, deliberate, organisational and personal. Simon differentiates between these different types of rationality. A decision is:
• objectively rational where it is correct behaviour for maximising given values in a given situation;
• subjectively rational if the decision maximises attainment relative to knowledge of the subject;
• consciously rational where adjustment of means to ends is a conscious process;
• deliberately rational to the degree that the adjustment of means to ends has been deliberately sought;
• organisationally rational to the extent that it is aimed at the organisation’s goals; and
• personally rational if the decision is directed to the individual’s goals.


Simon recognises these limitations to the decision-making processes and disputes the concept of total rationality in administrative behaviour. He is of the opinion that human behaviour is neither totally rational nor totally non-rational. He, therefore, falls back on the concept of ‘bounded rationality’ to explain the way in which decisions are made in reality. Operating
under conditions of ‘bounded rationality’ a practical decision-maker has not the wits to maximise on decisions of any significance. On the other hand, hemakes only satisficing (a word derived from the combination of ‘satisfy’ and ‘suffice’) decisions, that is, decisions do not maximise, and they only satisfy and suffice. In other words, the practical decision-maker looks for a satisfactory course of action in solving a problem rather than making an endless search for an ideal solution. He takes into account only those few factors of which he is aware, understands, and regards as relevant in making decisions.
According to Simon, the fundamental criterion guiding an administrator in all aspects of decision-making must be “efficiency”. In Public administration the efficiency criterion dictates the choice of that alternative which produces the largest result for the given application of resources. Simon finds the efficiency criterion applicable to low level decisions also. He thus concedes the significance of efficiency for the lower rungs of administration too.
Types of Decisions
Simon distinguishes between two types of decisions (i) programmed decisions and (ii) non-programmed decisions. These terms have been derived from computer literature.
(i) Programmed decisions are standing decisions. A programme in computer literature is a plan for automatic solution. In organisation there are decisions, which are repetitive and routine in nature. A definite procedure can be worked out for handling them, as they may not be treated as new and, therefore, no adhoc decisions are called for. Programmed decisions are available to administrators as guides in solving those problems that recur frequently.
Programmed decisions are generally used for routine cases such as tenders and contracts, compensation policy and salary administration.
(ii) Non-Programmed decisions when decisions are not repetitive, routine and cannot rely much on the past practices, established rules, regulations and procedures and which are inadequate to deal with the new kind of situations the organisation has to be obviously creative and innovative. Non-programmed decisions thus call for more ingenuity, consultation, and a degree of risk taking. They are new, unstructured and consequential. There is no cut-and-dried method for handling them. They require creativity and a greater amount of judgement in treating each independently. Basically these are special purpose decisions. Their life is short since they exist for a particular or single use. .
According to Simon there are different techniques for handling the programmed and non-programmed aspects of decision-making. To deal with programmed decisions the techniques adopted are habit, knowledge and skills, and informal channel. Whereas for non-programmed decisions the techniques adopted are selection and training of executives possessing higher skills, innovative ability etc. Simon is of opinion that the use of mathematical models, computer simulation and electronic data processing may prove to be revolutionary in making decisions rationally.

There are many models of decision-making behaviour. These models attempt to determine the extent of rationality of the decision-makers. The models range from complete rationality to complete irrationality of the economic man and the social man respectively. Simon develops a more realistic model of administrative man who stands next to the economic man.
The behaviour of an individual in an administrative situation is conditioned by organisational factors such as the expected role of the position, obligations and duties, concern for public interest, and moral and ethical responsibilities. It is therefore, impractical for administrative man to maximise the choice. Economic man maximises – selects the best alternative from among all those available to him, where as the administrative man cannot perceive all possible alternatives nor can predict all possible consequences. Instead of attempting to arrive at ‘optimal solutions’, the administrative man is satisfied with ‘good enough’ or ‘somehow muddling through’. Examples of satisficing criteria, familiar enough to businessmen and unfamiliar to most economists, are “share of market”, “adequate profit” and “fair price”. Economic man deals with the “real world” in all its complexly. Again, as the administrative man recognises that the world he perceives is the simplified version of the real world, he makes his choices using a simple picture of the situation that takes into account just a few of the factors that he regards as most relevant and crucial. Thus the administrative man makes his choice without ‘examining all possible alternatives’, ‘with relatively simple rules-of-thumb that do not make impossible demands upon his capacity for thought’. Since Simon’s administrative man does not have the ability to maximise, he always ends up with satisficing solutions. However, the difference between maximising and satisficing is relative. Under certain conditions satisficing approaches also maximise, whereas under other conditions satisficing and maximising are very far apart.
The construct of a model depicting the administrative man is followed by attempts at understanding the impediments and obstacles that come in the way of maximisation.

According to Simon resistance to change, desire for status, or dysfunctional conflicts caused by specialisation, etc., may impede maximisation.

                                                     Unit – III


'Public Policy', as an academic pursuit emerged in the early 1950s and since then it has been acquiring new dimensions, and is now attempting to acquire the status of a discipline. As a study of products of government, policy forms a significant component in several social science disciplines like political science, public administration, economics, and management. So rapid is the academic growth of public policy that many researchers, teachers, and public administrators now feel that it is becoming increasingly complex. The disciplines associated with public policy cut right across the old academic lines of demarcation. Indeed, it is this interdisciplinary quality, which makes the field of public policy interesting and thought-provoking.


Public policy is frequently used term in our daily life and in academic literature, where we often make references to national health policy, education policy, wage policy, agricultural policy, foreign policy and so on. It is an area, which had to do with those spheres that are labelled as public. The concept of public policy presupposes that there is a domain of life that is not private or purely individual, but common. In the past, studies on public policy were dominated by researchers and students of political I science. They broadly concentrated on the institutional structure and philosophical justifications of i the government. The focus was rarely on the policies themselves. Political science was to some extent preoccupied with the activities of the various political institutions and groups in relation to the success in the pursuit of political power. It hardly recognised the sole, which such organisations I played towards the formation of policy as one of its main concerns. Yet, policy is an important element of the political process. Thomas Dye, a leading scholar of policy analysis, observes, "Traditional (political science) studies described the institutions in which public policy was formulated. But unfortunately, the linkages between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy were largely unexplored." He further notes that today the focus of political science is shifting to public policy, that is, to the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government activity. While the concern of political science about the processes by which public policy is determined has increased, most students of public
administration would acknowledge that the public servants themselves are intimately involved in the shaping of the policies. The study of public administration has hitherto tended to concentrate on the machinery for the implementation of given policies. It has attended to the organisation of public authorities, the behaviour of public servants and increasingly, the methods of resource allocation, administration and review. With such an approach, it is difficult to determine much about the way policy is formulated, although it is generally contended that the experience of policy implementation feeds back into the furtherance of the policy-making process. It is an effort to apply political science to public affairs, but has concerns with processes which are within the field of public administration. In brief, past studies on public policy have been mainly dominated by scholars of political science and public administration and have tended to concentrate more on the content of policy and the process of its formulation and implementation. The study of public policy has evolved into what is virtually a new branch of the social science; it is called policy science. This concept of policy science was first formulated by Harold Lasswell in 1951.
The Idea of Public: It is first important to understand the concept of 'public' for a discussion of public policy. We often use such terms as 'public interest', 'public sector', 'public opinion', 'public health', and so on. 'The starting point is that 'public policy' has to do with those spheres, which are so labelled as 'public' as opposed to spheres involving the 'private'. The public dimension is generally referred to 'public ownership' or control for 'public purpose.' The public sector comprises that domain of human activity, which is regarded as requiring governmental intervention or common action. However, there has always been a conflict between what is public and what is private.
Public administration emerged as an instrument of the state for securing 'public' interest rather than 'private' interests. Whereas for the political economists, only markets could balance private and public interests, the new liberalism is based upon a belief that public administration is a more rational means of promoting the public interest. For Max Weber, the growth of bureaucracy was due to the process of rationalisation in industrial society. The civil servant is a rational functionary whose main task is to carry out the will of those elected by the people. Public bureaucracy is, therefore, different to that which exists in the private sector because the former is motivated to serve the public interest. he rational public interest argument started eroding after the Second World War. To Herbert Simon, bureaucracies exhibit a large measure of 'bounded rationality'. According to Mueller, bureaucrats do not always function in the public' interest and display an inclination to have distinct goals of their
own. In this connection, in his work on a comparative study of bureaucracy, Berbach observes, "The last quarter of this century is witnessing the virtual disappearance of the Weberian distinction between the roles of the politician and the bureaucrat, producing what may be labelled a pure hybrid." The public and private sectors reveal themselves as overlapping and interacting, rather than as well-defined categories. ii) The Concept of Policy Like the idea of 'public', the concept of 'policy' Is not a precise term. Policy denotes, among other elements, guidance for action. It may take the form of: e a declaration of goals; e a declaration of course of action; e a declaration of general purpose; and or an authoritative decision. Hogwood and Gunn specify ten uses of the term 'policy', that is policy as a label for a field of activity; an expression of desired state of affairs; specific proposals; decisions of government; fortnal authorisation; a programme; an output; an outcome; a theory or model; and a process. Unfortunately, the policy itself is something, which takes different forms. There 'is thrust to designate policy as the 'outputs' of the political system, and in a lesser degree to define public policy as more or less inter-dependent policies dealing with different activities. Studies of public policy, on the contrary, have tended to focus on the evaluation of policy decisions in terms of specified values - a rational rather than apolitical analysis. The magnitude of this problem can be recognised from the other definitions, which have been added by scholars in this field. Y Dror, a pioneer among scholars of the policy sciences, defines policies as general directives on the main lines of action to be followed. Similarly, Peter Self opines policies as changing directives as to how tasks should be interpreted and performed. To Sir Geoffrey Vickers, policies are "... decisions giving direction, coherence and continuity to the courses of action for which the decision making body is responsible". Carl Friedrich regards policy as, "a proposed course of action of a person, group, or government within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to use and overcome and to reach a goal or realise an objective or a purpose". James Anderson suggests that policy be regarded as "a purposive course of action followed by an actor or actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern". Taken as a whole, policy may be defined as a purposive course of action taken or adopted by those in power in pursuit of certain goals or objectives. It should be added here that public policies are the policies adopted and implemented by government bodies and officials. David Easton (1 957) defines public policy as "the authoritative allocation of values for the whole society". Public policies are formulated by what Easton calls the "authorities" in a political system, namely, "elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councillors, monarchs, and the like". According to Easton (1965), these are the persons who "engage in
the daily affairs of apolitical system", are recognised by no st members of the system as having responsibility for these matters and take actions that are "accepted as binding most of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits of their roles". Thomas Dye's definition states, "Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do". Similarly, Robest Linebeny says, "it is what governments do and fail to do for their citizens". In these definitions there is divergence between what governments decide to do and what they actually do. What Is Public Policy? Policies are strategies that organizations adopt to guide certain aspects of their operations. Public organizations use public policies to direct programs and services aimed at addressing issues within the communities they serve. Public policies target fields such as national defense, education, health, and agriculture to solve specific societal issues. Government entities at each major level of government — local, state, federal, and international — can implement public policies. International public policies may incorporate the thoughts and opinions of foreign governments or international organizations, such as the United Nations, but domestic civil servants develop public policies that serve intrastate purposes. The needs of the public are constantly changing, so policymaking must be an ongoing process, continually re-evaluating existing public policies to keep them from becoming stale or ineffective.


A policy may be general or specific, broad or narrow, simple or complex, public or private, written or unwritten, explicit or implicit, discretionary or detailed and qualitative or, quantitative. Here the emphasis is on public policy, that is, what a government chooses as guidance for action. From the view point of public policy, the activities of government can be put into three categories. First, activities that are attached to specific policies; second, activities that are general in nature; and activities that are based on vague and ambiguous policies. However, in practice, a government rarely has a set of guiding principles for all its activities. The Supreme Court of India may, through its decisions, give new interpretations to some of the articles of the Constitution, which may amount to a new policy. A public policy may cover a major portion of its activities, which are consistent with the development policy of the country. Socio-economic development, equality, or liberty or self-reliance or similar broad principles of guidance for action may be adopted as a
developmental policy or basic framework of goals. A public policy may be narrow, covering a specific activity, such as prevention of child labour or it may be broad, as women's empowerment. A public policy may be applied to a limited section of people of a country or to all its people. . Besides, each level of government - central, state and local -may have its specific or general policies. Then there are 'mega-policies'. General guidelines to be followed by all specific policies are termed as 'mega-policy'. According to Dror, 'mega-policies' for a kind of master policy, as distinct from concrete discrete policies, and involve the establishment of overall goals to serve as guidelines for the larger sets of concrete and specific policies. ~11 policies generally contain definite goals or objectives it1 more implicit or explicit terms. Policies have outcomes that may or not have been anticipated.
Relevance of public policy and public administration Public policies are the guidelines that government entities use to coordinate their various programs and initiatives. Public administrators are responsible for producing and managing those policies. Individuals who know how to root out societal problems and theorize policy-based solutions to those problems best perform this duty. A Master of Public Administration highlights the ways public administrators interact with public policy. The program helps graduate students develop the skills needed to make policy decisions for public organizations, such as governments and nonprofits.


A significant part of the study of public policy consists of the development of scenarios and extrapolations of contemporary trends in the public domain. The scope and the size of the public sector has grown enormously, especially in developing countries in response to the growing public needs and demands; and the increasing impact of other trends, such as, the complexity of technology, social organisation, industrialisation and urbanisation. At present, functions of all, governments in the developing countries have significantly increased. They are now concerned with the more complex functions of nation-building and socio-economic progress.
Today the government is not merely the keeper of peace, the arbiter of disputes, and the provider of common goods and day-to-day services, it has, directly or indirectly, become the principal innovates, the major determinist of social and economic programmes and the main financier as well as the main catalyst for economic enterprise and development. In many developing countries, there is great pressure on governments to accelerate national
development, make use of up-to-date and relevant technological innovations, adopt and facilitate necessary institutional changes, increase national production, make full use of human and other resources, and improve the standards of living. These trends and developments have therefore enhanced both the size and scope of public policy. Public policies touch almost all stages of the citizen's life cycle. With the increasing recourse to privatisation and outsourcing by public agencies the situation is undergoing rapid changes even in the developing countries.
Michael Teitz wrote this nearly 40 years ago. The range of public policy is vast, that is from vital to trivial. Today, public policies may deal with such substantive areas as defence, environment protection, medical care and health, education, housing, taxation, inflation, science and technology, and so on.


The focus in public policy is on the public and its problems. It is concerned with the issues and problems come to be defined and constructed and, how they are placed on the political and policy agenda. But it is also a study of how, why and to what effect the government pursue particular courses of action or inaction, or, as Thomas Dye puts it, "what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes."
It is clear from the above sections of the Unit that policy is a purposive course of action in dealing with a problem or a matter of concern within a specific timeframe. Before going into the question of importance that is attached to policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring would be better to recapitulate the components of public policy.
i ) Policy is purposive and deliberately formulated. Policy must have a purpose or a goal. It does not emerge at random or by chance. Once a goal is decided the policy is devised in such a way that it determines the course of action needed to achieve that goal.
ii) A policy is well thought-out and is not a series of discrete decisions.
iii) A policy is what is actually done and not what is intended or desired; a statement of goals
does not constitute a policy.
iv) Policy also delineates a time frame in which its goals have to be achieved.
v) Policy follows a defined course of action in a sequential order viz., formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
Actually the scope of public policy is determined by the kind of role that the state adopts for itself in a society. In the nineteenth century, the state was assigned a limited role and it was expected that it would merely act as a regulator of social and economic activity and not its promoter. However, since the middle of the twentieth century, the state has come to be perceived as an active agent in promoting and shaping societies in its various dimensions. As a consequence, public policies expanded their scope from merely one of regulation to that of promoter development and enterprise.
In many developing countries like India, the activist role of the state meant the assumption of
responsibility for the formulation of long-term development plans and policies to set the direction, which the country would follow. So, the first major goal of public policies in our country has been in the area of socio-economic development. Wide-ranging policies were formulated in the area of industrial and agricultural development, regulation and control of the private sector. From time to time, the spheres of the state and non-state sectors, and the type of goods to be produced have been specified. As a concomitant to changing policies, controls have been introduced or liberalised. With the onset of liberalisation, policies of deregulation were introduced. In India, the government undertook a major responsibility in the social sphere too. The enactment of the Anti-Dowry Act, Divorce Act, etc. are examples of this. A number of policies aimed at national integration, protection to disadvantaged groups have come into force. Empowerment of women, and decentralisation and devolution of authority to local bodies have been adopted as major constitutional policies. lndian experience with public policy indicates that current po1icies need not reflect pre-existing notions or perspectives about the role of the state at a given point of time, they represent the means of governance.
These days, policy analysis is acquiring a lot of importance in the realm of the study of public administration. This trend is observable all over the world. The degree of effectiveness in policy formulation, execution, and monitoring ultimately would depend to a large extent upon the rigour in policy analysis. Policies may also go haywire, as Indian realised, in the aftermath of the foreign exchange crisis of 1990-91. The 'highs' and the 'lows' in the role of the state provide learning experiences to the policy analyst.
The policy analyst should also be open to new conceptualisations and frameworks for analysis. For instance, theorists of public administration found it difficult to sustain the classical concept of separation of politics and administration. This distinction categorised
policy formulation and, implementation as two distinct activities. Policy formulation was regarded as apolitical activity, and policy implementation as an administrative one. But this distinction got increasingly blurred and it was not an easy task to determine where policy formulation ended, and where policy implementation began. It came to be accepted that both were interactive processes and had to be seen in an integrated way. With this change in the conceptual and analytical arena, scholars of public administration began to devote greater attention to the deficiencies in policy formulation as also to matters relevant to the influence of policy design and implementation.


Public policies are the governmental programmes, goals and purposes considered individually or collectively, that is, the authoritative decisional output of a politico-managerial system. These may be expressed in a variety of forms, including laws, legal ordinances, court decisions, executive orders, governmental rules and so on. Public policy formulation and policy implementation are two distinct but closely interrelated functions of the government. Public policy is laid down by the legislature or the political authorities, who are vested with the power of giving policy the requisite legal authority i.e. legitimacy. The policy implementation aspect is supposed to be in the domain of the executive, i.e., the bureaucracy or the administrative arm of the government. This distinction is in line with the traditional Wilsonian politics-administration dichotomy. Public administration, in theory, at least, maintained this distinction till the advent of the New Public Administration movement launched at the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. In the 1970s, it was asserted that the dichotomy between politics and administration was unreal, as the legislature and the executive collaborated closely in policy making, and that policy process was multi-actor-centric.
In fact, in reality, administrative processes and structures have always witnessed an obvious ‘transgressing and transcending’ of these demarcated roles. The legislature lays down a policy in general terms, which is usually expressed in the form of Constitutional and legal enactments. In order to give a precise expression to the provisions underlying policies, the administrative or the executive arm of the government also joins hands in policy making. And this role of the administrative arm of the government in policy making has grown in
importance over the years. Therefore, policy making as well as policy implementation have come into the hands of the administrators to a large extent.
A policy cycle generally includes the following stages:
• Identification of policy problems, through demands for government action
• Agenda setting or focusing the attention of public officials on specific public problems
• Formulation of policy proposals, their initiation and development by the policy planning organisations, executive, legislative and interest groups
• Adoption and legitimating of policies through the political actions of the government, interest groups, and political parties
• Implementation of policies through bureaucracies, public expenditure and activities of executive agencies; and
• Evaluation and analysis of policy implementation and impact
Despite the formal control of the civil service by the political executive (Ministers at the Central and state levels as well a Members of Legislative Assembly) in parliamentary democracies like India, the debate on the role of higher civil servants in policy-making and a constant fear over their growing influence in this area is gaining steam. It has been argued that, on the one hand, their role is to develop and carry out the will of those who lay down policies. On the other hand, there is also a recognition of the fact that they are actively involved just as the other pressure groups, political parties and the like in the making of policy in its formative as well as secondary stages.
These aspects are usually embodied in a public policy that is authorised by the legislature and enacted in the form of legislation. Owing to the magnitude and complexity of public activities, legislation cannot provide for details required for moulding a public policy, with the result that appointed public officials are granted discretionary powers to enable them to execute legislation. In practice, the execution of public policies (normally as legislation) is dependent upon the support of public officials (the bureaucrats at the upper, middle and local rungs) for those policies. They work in conjunction with political office bearers and could be referred to as associates striving to achieve the same goal. It is therefore a prerequisite that they should trust one another. For public servants, politics is a sine qua non. The policy functions of public officials or the bureaucrats, especially top echelons, are manifold. They
are policy formulators, policy innovators, policy monitors, policy implementers, policy advisors, policy analysts; and policy evaluators. Thus, the role of bureaucracy is crucial in the entire policy process.


Policy formulation is often a non-linear process. It is incremental and subjected to influences exerted by wide range of actors. Though it is based on policy learning inputs, it may not always emanate from it. As has been put forth, policy formulation, on paper, is the craftsmanship of the legislature. In reality, however, bureaucracy is deeply involved in the proper articulation and shaping of policies, as the policy process entails the identification of policy problems and policy agenda. Thomas R. Dye has defined public policy as whatever governments choose to do or not to do. We contend that government’s inaction can have just as great an impact on society as government action (Cf Sahni, 1987). Civil servants have to bring in a new orientation to the rules by which the everyday conduct of public affairs has to be regulated. Civil servants have much to contribute to the shaping and not just implementation of the policy (Beteille, 2000). The basic objectives of any government pertain to provision of economic infrastructure and goods and services, resolution of conflict situations, protection of natural resources, stabilisation of economy, promotion of human welfare and social justice. These get translated into public policies which are made, executed and evaluated by the legislature and the executive. Judiciary also plays an important role in policy review if it goes against the Constitutional norms. The role of bureaucracy in policy making is informative, suggestive and analytical.
Role of Middle Level Bureaucrats

It is often presumed that only the top officials – heads of the state departments and their immediate subordinates, i.e. the two top ranks – are actually involved in policy advice, policy formulation and policy monitoring. In practice, however, the incumbents of ranks three and four from the top (the so-called middle ranks) are actively engaged in policy making as well as policy execution. It is usually the incumbents of the middle ranks, who are responsible for the actual drafting of bills and proposed amendments to existing legislations, compiling white papers, pointing out to their supervisors whether the implementation of existing policies meets with the laid down requirements or not and suggesting alternative strategies that need to be followed. In fact, they are actively involved in policy formulation, innovation, monitoring, and advice.
Depending on the leadership (management) style of the minister, the political sensitivity of the issue on hand, and the acceptance levels of the heads of the department, the middle level officials may have a greater or lesser impact in the making of the public policy, especially if they are to have direct access to the minister. For example, when the minister bypasses the head of the department to hold consultations directly with the middle-level bureaucrats or requests them to report directly to him, their involvement in policy making goes up. Normally, this position does not arise and all the policy proposals of middle level bureaucrats are scrutinised by the top bureaucrats, who may accept them with or without alteration, or refer them back to the middle level for changes, adjustments, clarification, details, or an explanatory memorandum on the issue, that could be utilised by the minister while making a policy decision.
It is quite possible that the situation might arise, where the top-level officials (who are supposed to have the official policy formulation authority because of the posts they occupy) might do little more than to legitimate the policy proposals formulated at the middle levels of the hierarchy. If necessary, they would make only minor adjustments to the proposal submitted to them, and occasionally make a selection between the alternative courses of action as proposed by their subordinates (who are often responsible for the actual task of acquiring and interpreting information and for framing proposals in acceptance terms) before submitting the proposals to the minister concerned.
Role of Top Level Bureaucrats
The top echelons of bureaucracy have a significant role in the policy process. The idea should not be created that the top-level bureaucrats only serve as a sort of clearing house between the minister and middle level bureaucrats. The reality is far from that. True, the top level bureaucrats are in direct contact with the minister, but their function is to challenge the proposals put to them by their subordinates, to add their own knowledge and insight into the proposals, and above all to see to it that the proposals eventually put before the minister have taken cognisance of the policy of the government of the day.
The top echelons of bureaucracy have to also go into the political expediency of the proposed policy, and the viability of proposals in terms of economic conditions. They also have to ascertain the resources at hand, availability of manpower, and administrative practicability, i.e. to measure correctly the limits of what is possible and acceptable. It is often believed that expected expertise is of a bureaucrat, whilst the minister should exercise judiciousness. If the
aforementioned functions of the top-level bureaucrats are taken into account, he is also expected to exercise judiciousness when dealing with proposals, which are to be put to the minister, albeit judiciousness is to be seen within the parameters laid down by the policy of the government of the day.
Even though policy is formulated by the ministers and the bureaucrats (top and middle levels), the bureaucrats being neutral, in theory, are not supposed to have much say. They serve the government and not the party in power. As such, the political executive, irrespective of their party, can depend upon the civil servants. But the civil servants or the bureaucrats have their own views about what is significant for the department and the country, and recognising the fact that they cannot act independently, look for strong ministerial leadership. Officials do not like political heads who are unable to exert influence. If a minister has a strong commitment to a policy, especially supported by a party ideology, the bureaucrat’s influence is reduced considerably.
Jon Pierre (1995) states that it would be misleading to think that politicians and bureaucrats invariably share an adversarial relationship. On the contrary, policy makers and bureaucrats frequently develop networks promoting common sectoral interests. There are various models to describe the relationship between politicians and bureaucrats. The models range from the ideal mode of highly distinctive roles of politicians and bureaucrats to the model where the roles almost converge. This convergence model is called ‘Pure Hybrid’ model. The nature of the interaction between politicians and bureaucrats depends not only on systemic factors; but is also contingent on contextual factors. It varies between different policy sectors, over time and under political regimes of different ideological orientations.
There are numerous reasons for the growing role of bureaucracy in policy formulation. In fact, the very concepts of ‘delegated legislation’ and ‘administrative adjudication’ (about which you would be reading in the next Unit, i.e. Unit 13 of this Course) have emerged out of the accentuating significance of bureaucracy’s role in formulation of policies. Let us see how the bureaucrats are placed in the policy process and in what way does their position influence policy making. There are many factors that put bureaucrats at an advantage vis-à-vis policy formulation:

i) Information Base
Under the Indian Constitution, the higher civil servants or top echelons of bureaucracy have a Constitutional responsibility to advise on policy options. The secretaries to the Government
of India, for example, advise the ministers to take decisions that arise within the framework of the existing laws or policy, which otherwise cannot be dealt with by routine procedures. Such decisions clarify the scope of a policy and finalise its application in new and special situations. Further, they are extensively involved in preparing explanatory material for ministerial use on the operation of existing policies. Thus, higher civil servants, particularly the secretaries to the Government of India and the state government play more than an advisory role in the public policy formulation process.
ii) Knowledge and Experience
Higher civil servants have a nearby total monopoly of the knowledge, which they have derived from their educational qualifications and their direct experience with the operation of public policies. The vast experience and knowledge enable them to argue from positions of great strength about the financial and administrative difficulties of policy proposals, the repercussions likely to be encountered from the affected groups, and many new methods of dealing with policy problems. They are the think tanks of the government. The very fact that they collect data for policy decisions, analyse the underlying problem and select policy alternatives has a bearing on policy making. By contrast, the new industrial and scientific technology places in the hands of modernised elite and State officials many new weapons of social control. The result is, as has been pointed out, that quite often bureaucracies and military, have usurped in the name of ‘tutelage’ played by legislators and party leaders.
iii) Permanence of Service
The bureaucrats’ position is further strengthened by their permanence in the administrative organisation as compared to the frequent rotation of a minister. The average time spent by a minister with a department is much less than the average time spent by a bureaucrat. Minister’s stay in the office very often falls short of the time required for a policy to be formulated, implemented and evaluated. Bureaucrats are normally appointed for a career in the public service. This puts them in the position to acquire vast knowledge of a specific public sphere. Due to their expert knowledge of the work done in their departments; of the results and impacts of existing legislation, and also because they can devote all their time to the administration of their departments, they are in the unique position. This is further strengthened by the fact that they know intimately what is feasible or not feasible and where innovation and creativeness could serve a positive purpose. They need not therefore wait for
things to happen, but could initiate improvements and stimulate the development process more satisfactorily than their political bosses or the ministers.
iv) Advisory Expertise
To be implement able, a public policy must be realistic, which means that public official should provide the elected political office bearer with complete data and advice him on the possible implications of the specific policy alternatives. The mere fact that they present the political office bearer with alternative policy proposals is indicative of their important role in anticipating the future and forecasting policy impacts. The quality of the policy advisory function of the bureaucrat is dependent upon the extent to which he connects with the policy of the government of the day, the views of the opposition parties; and the needs of the society.
B.Guy Peters (2001) talks of on ‘Agency Ideology’ in order to understand the bureaucratic response to policy intentions. The soft version of agency ideology is that the existing programme itself is a fit of ideas that are favoured by the bureaucracy, mainly due to familiarity. Thus, ongoing programme of a governmental agency is agency ideology. Ministers coming into positions of power over bureaucratic structures have invariably reported overt or covert resistance of bureaucrats and existence of “departmental view” about policy that limits the effectiveness of ministers. The “hard” version states that not only must the bureaucracy be interested in the preservation of existing policies of the agency, but it must also be interested in imposing a new set of policy priorities. Moreover, the bureaucrats do change their perceptions of good policy over time in view of their expertise, knowledge, attitudinal configurations and stay in the agency.
The bureaucrat should therefore not be indifferent to party politics. As has been pointed out, the senior civil servant should not be indifferent to the ends a government undertakes to serve. He should not refrain from pressing upon his minister his own conception of broad policy. He should not be coldly objective in indicating alternatives. He should not merely remain a repository of factual information.
Thus, the bureaucrat must provide factual advice on which policy to follow. In practice, this means that the bureaucrats dominates the “fact finding, analysis and recommendations side” of policy making, with the result that a minister with an extremely able group of bureaucrats as advisers will find that his personal impact on policy making will not be very great and the balance of ability could, in the end, be decisive of the balance of power.
It is, however, true that bureaucrats can influence only in so far as the elected political office bearers are willing to take their advice on the fact that a specific course of action is the best. In their policy advising function they thus have only an indirect impact. They could, nevertheless, tailor their advise to the minister to fit in with their views on policy, or give advice only in areas where the minister has no specific view.


Pfiffner and Presthus (1960) call bureaucracy the social instrument that could bridge the gap between legislative intent and its fulfillment. Bureaucratic influence over policy implementation is significant, ranging from virtual nullification of some legislation to the limited discretion involved in administering a detailed statute. But in every case discretion is involved.
Public policies are made, implemented and evaluated by public officials and by governmental institutions duly authorised or specifically established to do so. The relationship between the policy makers (the legislature or the ministers), and policy implementers (the bureaucrats as well as governmental and non-governmental institutions) is likely to affect policy implementation. The institutions established specifically for policy implementation, for example state departments, the courts and quasi-autonomous (or para-statal) institutions, have through their executive activities, a greater or lesser degree of direct contact with public.
The bureaucrats are considered to be the agency of government for getting the benefits of legislation to the public through implementation of various policies, which are enacted by the governmental agencies from time to time. The implementation of policies by the bureaucracy helps in building the credibility of political executive in the eyes of common people.
Policy implementation involves a number of steps. The very first is to study and understand the policy statement and determine whether the executors should go ahead with implementation as prescribed. This entails several pertinent queries such as would the support staff and resources be adequate enough, would the staff be able to perform their tasks effectively, what additional resources and information would be required and what criteria would be adopted to evaluate and assess the policy outcomes. Implementation should be a fact-finding as well as a problem-tracing exercise. Though the bureaucrats are assigned the task of implementation, the political executive controls the process through control over policy finances.
The bureaucrats play a dual role of performing the ‘output’ functions of executing policies and programmes and also the ‘input’ functions, which relate not only to policy making but also influencing public attitude towards the government. The important duties of the bureaucrats are to: (i) Execute policies and orders, as prescribed by the government, (ii) Maintain and keep in order the overall administrative apparatus which lies within its official charge, and (iii) Give advice to the political executive regarding rules of procedure, regulation etc.
The public policy, owing to a lack of time, information or expertise, is sometimes framed in general terms. the executive institutions are therefore responsible for supplying the details pertaining to policy execution, with the result that the administrative process can be regarded as an extension of the legislative process, and as such puts bureaucrats at the centre of the arena. The problems that could be encountered in policy implementation, the resources that would be needed for execution, the work mechanism and nature of policy execution and agencies to be involved in are some pertinent issues that are decided during the policy making phase itself by the ministers and bureaucrats.
Public policy legislation becomes significant only when efficiently implemented, usually by the bureaucrat. His actions or inactions can, therefore, seriously make or impede the success of a particular policy. Successful implementation of policy depends on the insight of the official and whether he identifies himself with the policy aims of the legislator. In fact, he is supposed to do nothing that could prove to be embarrassing to the minister, but has to treat the aims of the policy as his very own and work towards achieving them.
The bureaucrats’ decisions pertaining to policy implementation are limited to decisions that correspond to the political policy of the government of the day. The decisions of the bureaucrats should, if possible, be those decisions, which the minister would have taken if he were personally implementing the policy. In other words, the bureaucrat is expected to implement policy with the same goodwill of the minister and is to render services in order to provide products to the public irrespective of personal prejudice or bias. Since the bureaucrat always executes his tasks in a political milieu, all his decisions are a mixture of political and administrative considerations, the bureaucrats cannot dissociate themselves from the political ideology of the government of the day; neither can they dissociate themselves from the policies embodied in legislation.
Apart from being the chief formulators of the bill, the bureaucrats are also, to a great extent, responsible for help and advice in the process of passing a bill through Parliament. Without the help and cooperation of the bureaucrats, the minister could find himself in a position where he is confronted with wide-ranging questions pertaining to policy related issues, which the bill deals with. Ministers and bureaucrats are thus partners in the passing of a bill.
When implementing policies, the bureaucrats have direct powers. Because of complexities of the modern government and administration, they are granted the right to exercise discretion in the execution of policy. The exercise of discretion gives them a chance to prevent the perusal of policy goals to which they are opposed. They are thus in a position to delay the implementation of policies, or only partially implement them. It is often found that both the political leadership and the citizens blame the permanent executive (the career bureaucrats) for the lack of proper execution of the policies. The bureaucrats, on the other hand, feel that they do not get the due support and infrastructure from the political executive. The bureaucracy makes the policy objectives clear to the citizens and persuades them to adhere to the policies. Such an attempt smoothens the task of policy implementation. The bureaucracy, especially at cutting-edge level, tries to be closer to the public and endeavours to placate the interest groups. By virtue of their position at the interface between citizens and the State, street level bureaucrats have significant opportunities to influence the delivery of public policies. These street level bureaucrats or the front-line workers are responsible for many significant tasks from determining programme eligibility, allocating benefits, judging compliance, imposing sanctions, and exempting offenders from penalties. They thus operate as important lynchpins that not only deliver but actively shape policy outcomes by interpreting rules and allocating scarce resources. The policies implemented by the street level workers are closest to the requirements of the citizens. (Meyers and Versanger, 2003)
As policy implementation is a complex process, bureaucrats have to take many policy decisions themselves. They also have to determine which decisions should be taken by the ministers themselves. The relationship between the minister and the bureaucrat and the political circumstances surrounding an issue will determine what is decided and by whom the final decision is made. In practice, it is accepted that the bureaucrat is the catalyst in policy implementation, whilst the final policy decisions are in the domain of the minister.
The continued exposure of the bureaucrats to political matters and their expert knowledge of specific public issues, helps them, in due course, to learn to answer questions related to policy in such a way that the material they provide to their ministers can be advantageously used to
defend a policy in Parliament and elsewhere. In practice, this means that the bureaucrats participate in defending the policy of the government, irrespective of the party in power. The bureaucrat has, thus been referred to as a permanent politician, whose views are extremely important in modern-day government, and as an expert, he is a co-ruler in the administration. This could lead to a position where the minister is totally dependent on the bureaucrats, in that the minister is not fully conversant with all the aspects of policy either because of being new to the office, or because of not taking cognisance of the results of policy monitoring.


As has been pointed out earlier, drawing an absolute dividing line between policy advice and policy formulation is not possible. A similar point can be made when analysing the policy monitoring function by the bureaucrat. The basic purpose of policy monitoring is to obtain policy relevant information that will enable the bureaucrat to advice the minister on policy results for adapting existing policy or devising policy alternatives.
Policy monitoring mechanism uses various methods to obtain information about the causes and consequences (what, why, how?) of public policy and is usually concerned with facts pertaining to the policy after adaptation and implementation, i.e. with the signs of what the implications of implementation are. Since the bureaucrat also has a an important role in the policy monitoring function, he has to see to it that the State effectively serves the society, which means he has to compare the results with intentions of a policy and is the ‘eyes and ears’ of the minister in the department. Furthermore, it is the task of, especially the higher bureaucrat, to ensure that no conflict develops between the intentions of the policy makers, as embodied in legislation, and the practical execution of the policies by the staff in his department.
Thus, the purpose of policy monitoring is to ascertain that implementation of policies is in consonance with policy goals and objectives. Policy targets have to be achieved through adequate implementation. Policy monitoring is done by the ministers with the help, support and advice of the bureaucrats. Over here, the role of street level bureaucrats is again very pertinent as they oversee the implementation of policies at the field level along with the local level functionaries and non-governmental and self-help organisations.
Various methods in policy monitoring are taken into view depending on the nature of the policy being implemented. These are basically policy evaluation approaches as continuous
policy monitoring is an integral part of policy evaluation. Some of the approaches are Front-end Analysis, Availability Assessment, Process evaluation Approach and Evaluation Synthesis approach. Policy monitoring could be piece-meal exercise, which means that it is either monitored on a monthly or a six monthly basis or it could also be done on an annual and long-term basis. Monitoring becomes easier if the targets of the policy are set in a definite and quantifiable terms. The more tangible and quantitative the policy goals, the more clear and meaningful would be policy monitoring.
When the output involves direct contact with citizens, the ability of supervisors to monitor and direct staff activities is even more constrained. The bureaucrats have to overcome these hurdles to ensure a smooth and efficient policy monitoring process. This is an area where bureaucrat’s role has come in for a lot of flak. They must play a more positive role in policy monitoring. The bureaucrats have a specific role in policy monitoring. They see to it that at the policy making stage itself, the magnitude of the problem is encountered, the target group of the policy, the processes and actors involved are all identified and segregated for the purpose of monitoring and evaluation.


Policy analysis consists of not only examining and bringing improvements in the process of formulating policies but also evaluating the choices and outcomes of the policies. The quality and eventually the usefulness of a policy depends on a scientific, professional and detailed analysis of the existing or proposed policies. It is only when the public policy making bodies are supplied with the data regarding the causes, consequences, costs and implement ability of a policy, with stress on its utilisation in policy adaptation, that the promotion of rationality in public policy making moves a step forward. Unfortunately, owing to constraints such as the restricted availability of information, exorbitant costs of gathering information, information overload, political considerations and ever-changing demands and priorities of the society, no systematic analyses of the public policy can provide all answers to policy defects. Nevertheless, through public policy analysis, information on priorities and certainties becomes available to the policy makers to serve as the basis for policy decisions.

Policy analysis could be descriptive, prescriptive or comparative. Its dimensions include purposes, interventions, political feasibility, beliefs, perceptions, and other determinants. In order to make a detailed and systematic examination of any policy, the analysts ought to be
fairly clear about the meaning and goals of the policy under study. Bureaucrats have to see what policy choices have been made and why, what are the benefits and losses, what difference does the money make, what is the impact of policy; and how should the policies be evaluated. The bureaucrats thus have to keenly observe and evaluate the role of different structures and processes in policy execution. Again, as we read in the case of policy monitoring, systematic policy analysis is also dependent on adequate policy making.
Yehezkel Dror has listed nine standard features of policy formulation method, which can help in policy analysis. These are:
i) There should be some clarification of values, objectives and criteria for policy making
ii) The method should include identification of the alternatives, with an effort to consider new alternatives
iii) The method should include preliminary estimation of expected pay offs from the various alternatives and a decision on whether a strategy of minimal risk or of innovation is preferable
iv) There is a need to establish a cut off horizon for considering the possible results of the alternative policies and identification of the expected results, relying on available knowledge and institution

v) Analysis of alternatives should deal with both quantitative and qualitative factors in order to overcome the limitations of current systems analysis and advance towards policy analysis
vi) The method should include an effort to decide whether the issue is important enough to make more comprehensive analysis worthwhile
vii) The composition of a mix of experience, rationality and extra-rationality should be relied on
viii) Explicit techniques such as Simulation and Delphi should be used; and
ix) The method should include explicit arrangements to improve policy making by encouraging intellectual effort.
After the crucial issues requiring urgent policy attention are identified, it has to be ascertained by the bureaucrats whether such issues could make for viable policies or not. The
bureaucracy engages itself in analysing the pros and cons of the issue that is taken up for policy formulation. It frames and reframes policy proposals keeping in view its viability, future prospects, resources available and acceptability. It also has to see that Constitutional provisions do not get sidelined in framing of public policies. Thus, the bureaucrats prepare for policy analysis at the time of policy formulation itself.
The bureaucrats are often too hard-pressed by day-to-day cases and workloads to be able to reflect on new policy. The administration of existing policies generally occupies their major time. Forecasting expenditure, preparing explanatory briefs on current policy, negotiating with interest groups and administering of subordinate personnel often adds to the neglect of the policy-making function by the higher bureaucrats. The desirable role of senior civil servants in policy analysis is now receiving attention from policy experts in the developed and developing countries. Accepted patterns of senior civil servants’ recruitment, training and careers are increasingly being recognised as inadequate for meeting the changing needs of the day.
Policy analysis and policy management are demanding activities in which abstract (but evidence based) thinking must be applied to pressing issues. Therefore, intensive efforts are needed for appropriate training of bureaucrats in policy analysis and management. There is a need for preparation of suitable texts, training materials, and computer programmes etc. and this requires highly qualified and experienced trainers. These training needs raise serious difficulties; more so, as inadequate training efforts in policy management for senior bureaucrats may cause much more damage than benefit. Therefore, urgent action is needed to prepare adequate policy analysis for essential training activities. Improvement in the skills of senior bureaucrats does take time and is not only a matter of development, but of working arrangements, as well as organisational settings. Without political support and the willing cooperation of top administrators, little can be done. Furthermore, the all round improvement of the senior bureaucrats is only one dimension of the problems of policy analysis.
The bureaucrats as policy analysts have to view the policies in the light of the significance of the role of political executive in policy formulation, The role of ruling party, opposition parties and legislative committees has to be examined by the policy analysts in order to bring forth how a policy virtually comes in to being. If politicians are the masters of policy ideas, then certainly, as has been observed, the bureaucracy is the master of routine and technique. It does not actually present feasible means to carry out policies but translates what is feasible into policy. The bureaucracy may wish to be innovative but is frequently
limited by a dependency on accepted procedures for a definition of what can and should be done. If stress is on increased accountability; then bureaucrats would most certainly retreat behind a wall of procedures for protection, thus bidding good bye to the much desired flexibility and innovativeness (B. Guy Peters, op.cit.). Even the role of the judiciary in policy making should come under the purview of policy analysis.
The analysts of the policy have to also examine the implementation mechanism and the role played by governmental and non-governmental actors. Policy analysis has become more problematic in the contemporary context of governance against the backdrop of globalisation and networking among many agencies. With the coming of international agencies and taking over or contracting out of many public services such as power distribution, water supply and civil aviation by private operators, policy monitoring and analysis have become cumbersome exercises. The bureaucrats have a complex role in case of analyses of such public policies, which are being implemented in collaboration with national and international private and non-state actors. This is another area that requires systematic deliberation by the old as well as the new participants in policy analyses.


In the 1970s various studies on policy implementation have indicated that policy-making in many areas had not achieved its stated goals. It was evident that government interventions, especially those relating to social problems were often ineffective. This has generated academic interest in designing studies to evaluate policy. Such studies made important contributions to the implementation theory, which will be discussed in the subsequent section.
1 Top-Down Model
i) Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky: Policy Implementation Relationship
Two American scholars Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky, are the founding fathers of
Implementation studies. For them, implementation is clearly related to policy. They observe, "policies normally contain both goals and the means for achieving them". Much of the analysis in their book (A Study of a Federally Mandated Program r e of Economic Development in Oaltland, California) is concerned with the extent to which success implementation depends upon the linkages between different organisations and departments at the local level. An effective implementation requires, they argue, a top-down system of control and communications, and resources to do the job.
i i ) Donald Van Meter and Carl Van Horn: System Building
Donald Van Meter and Carl Van Horn offer a model for the analysis of the implementation process. Their approach starts with a consideration of the need to classify policies in terms that will throw light upon implementation difficulties. According to the implementation will be most successful, where only marginal change is required and goal consensus is high. They suggest a model in which six variables ate linked dynamically to the production of an outcome i.e., performance. These six variables are:
i) policy standards and objectives, which 'elaborate on the overall goals of the decision to provide concrete and more specific standards for assessing performance';
ii) resources and incentives made available;
iii) quality of inter-organisational relationships;
iv) characteristics of the implementation agencies, including issues like organisational control but also, inter organisational issues, 'the agency's formal and informal linkages with the "policymaking" or "policy-enforcing body;
v) economic, social, and political environment; and
vi) 'disposition' or 'response' of the implementers, involving three elements'; their cognition
(comprehension, understanding) of the policy, the direction of their response to it (acceptance, neutrality, rejection) and the intensity of that response.'
Clearly, the model of Meter and Horn is to direct the attention 6f those who study implementation rather than provide prescriptions for policy makers.
iii) Eugene Bardach: Implementation Game
There are scholars who regard public policy implementation as a political game. The game model was advocated by Bardach in 1977. According to Bardaclch, implementation is a game of 'bargaining, persuasion, and manoeuvring under conditions of uncertainty." In tliis model, organisation is seen as a structure composed of groups and individuals, all seeking to maximise their power and influence. From this angle, implementation is about self-interested people who are playing policy games. Policy implementeis attempt to win as much control as possible and make moves in the game so as to achieve their objectives. This model suggests that policies extend beyond the formal
political institutions. Implementation is, therefore, seen as apolitical game, which individ~~apllsa y
for the purpose of maximising their power. Thus Bardach's work presents the view that
implementation is a political process, and successful iinplernentation from a 'top-down' approach
should have a colnprehensive understanding of the political processes involved down the line.
i v) Brian Hogwood and Lewis Gunn : Recommendations for Policy-Makers *
Brian Hogwood and Lewis Gunn also contribute to implementation approach in their
Policy A?znl.ysis for the Real World. They advocate a 'top-down' view and defend it on the P
% +
ground that those who make policies are democratically elected. They offer ten
to policy makers. The latter should ensure that:
o external circu~nstancesd o not impose crippling constraints;
o adequate time and sufficient resources are made available to the programme;
at each stage in the implementation process, the required combination of resources is actually
e pol icy to be implemented is based upon a valid theory of cause and effect;
e relationship between cause and effect is direct and there are few, if any, intervening links;
there is a single implementing agency that need not depend upon other agencies for success,
01; if other agencies must be involved, the dependency relationships are minimal in number
and importance;
e there is co~npleteunderstandingo f, and agreement upon, the objectives to be achieved, and
these conditions should persist throughout the implementation process;
e in moving towards agreed objectives it is possible to specify, in complete detail and perfect
sequence, the tasks to be performed by each participant;
e there is a perfect communication among, and co-ordination of, the various elements
in the programme; and
e those in authority can demand and obtain perfect obedience.
v) Christopher Hood: Styles of Public Management '
Christopher Hood argues that variation in ideas about how to organisepublic services is a
and' recurrent theme in public management. He suggests the application of gridlgroup
cultural - 5.
theory. Here, 'grid' refers to alternatives that public organisations should be constrained or, by
contrast, managers should be 'free to manage'. 'Group', on the other hand, refers to debates
about who should provide se~vicesH. ence, Hood arrives at four 'styles of public
management' as
~nentionedb elow:
e High 'grid'/low 'group' - 'the fatalist way' where rule-bound systems are developed and
low levels of co-operation are the pattern;
High 'grid'/high 'group' - 'the hierarchist way' involving socially cohesive rule-bound systems;
e LOW 'grid9/1ow 'group' - 'the individualist way' involving a high emphasis on negotiation
bargaining; and .I
e Low 'grid'lhigh 'group' - 'the egalitarian way' with the expectation of a high level of
Hood argues that these'four approaches represent choices, each with built in strengths and +
weaknesses. The views expressed by Hood are mostly in the anaIytical realm as they
highlight the
various models considered for control of public services.
2 Bottom-Up Model

Exponents of bottom-up model are of the view that top-down model lacks effective
> in practice. They argue that students of public administration and public policy have to take
account %
of the interaction of implementers with their clients. The exponents of the bottom-up
therefore, suggest that the implementation process involves 'policy-making' by those who are
i~ivolvedin puttingpolicies into effect.
i) Michael Lipsky: S treet-level Bureaucracy
Michael Lipsky is the founding father of the bottom-up perspective. His analysis of the
behavior of
front-line staff in policy delivery agencies- whom he calls 'street level bureaucrats' -has some
ir~fluencoe n i~nplelnentationst udies. The implication of this study is that control over
people is not
the mechanism for effective implementation. He argues that the decisions of street-level
the ro~~tintehse y establish, and the devices they invent to cope with uncertaintiesa nd
effectively become the public policies they carry out. To cope with the pressures brought on
street-level bureaucrats often develop methods of processing people in a relatively routine
stereotyped way. According to Lipsky, tlley develop conceptions of their work, and of their
clients that narrow the gap between their p'ersonnel and work limitations, and the service
Such workers see themselves as cogs in a system, as oppressed by the bureaucracy within
they work. Yet, they seem to have a great amount of discretiona~yfr eedom and autonomy.
attempts to control them hierarchically simply increases their tendency to stereotype and
the needs of their clients. This means that diverse approaches are needed to secure the
of implementers. These approaches should provide a framework that feeds the expectatiosn
of the
clientele into the implementation.
The bottom-up model also sees the implementation process as involving negotiation and
building. These take place in two environments: the administrative capability and cultures of
organisations involved in administering p~~blpiocli cy; and the political environment in
which they
have to carry out the policies.
In the bottom-up nod el, great stress is laid on the fact that 'street-level' implementers have
in how they apply policy. Professionals, viz. doctors, teachers, engineers, social workersshape
policy and have an important role in ensuring the performance of a policy. In other words, as
Dunleavy notes, the policy-making process may be skewed by policy implementation, which
lurgety dominated by the professionals. Doctors, for instance, may deveIop ways of
health policies, which actually result in outcomes that arequite different to the intent ions of
makers. This is possible because policy implementation involves a high margin of discretion.
Davis observes, "A public officer has discretion wherever the effective limits on his power
him free to make a choice among possible courses of action and inaction". In the discharge of
policy delivery functions, implementers have varying bands of discretion over how they
choose to
apply the rules.
3 Policy-Action Relationship Model
Lewis wdFlynn developed a behavioural model, which views(implementation as action by
that is, coilstrained by the world outside their organisations. Emphasis on interaction with the
outside world, and the organisation's institutional context imply that policy goals are not the
gl-licles to action. This theme of analysis has also been developed by Barrett and Fudge.
argue that implementation may be best understood in tenns of a 'policy-action-continum7'inw
an interactive and bargaining process takes place over timk between those who are
for enacting policy and those who have control over resources. In this model, more emphasis
is placed on issues of power and dependence, and pursuits of interests, than in either the topdown
01. the bottom-up approaches. The policy-action model shows that policy is something that
As Majone and Wildavsky note, ". . ..implementation will always be evolutionary; it will
refolmulate as well as carry out policy."
12;3.4 Inter-Organisational Interaction Approach
I~nplementationis also described as a process that involves interactions within a multiplicity

organisations, In this context, there are two approaches, which are mentioned below.
i) Power-Dependency Approach
According to this approach imnplementation takes place in the context of interaction of
Such interaction produces power relationships in which organisations can induce other less
organisations to interact with them. Those organisations, which depend for their sustenance
other more resourceful organisations, have to work in such a way as to secure and protect
interests and maintain their relative autonomy, so that implementation does not suffer.
ii) Organisational Exchange Approach
This view holds that organisations collaborate with their counterparts for mutual benefit.
in the power-dependency approach; the organisational relations are based on dominance and
dependence, interaction in the organisational exchange approach is based on exchange for
Adapting a bottom-up approach Hjern and Porter argue that implementation should be
in terms of institutional stmctures, which comprise clusters of actors and organisations. A
is not implemented by a single organisation, but through aset of organisational pools. They
that failure to identify implementation structures as administrative entities distinct from
has led to severe difficulties in administering the implementation of programmes.
Irnplernentation of programmes, which requires a matrix or multiplicity of organisations,
gives rise
to a complex pattern of interactions that top-down frameworks fail to recognise.
these approaches do not satisfactorily explain implementation, and in practice programmes
on their application yield little success.
12.3.5 A Synthesis of .Bottom-up and Top-Down Approaches
The policy implementation is the continuation of the policy-making process. To Sabatier and
Mazmanian, implementation and policy-making are one and the same process. They attempt
synthesis of the ideas of both top-down and bottom-up approaches into a set of six conditions
the effective implementation of policy objectives. These conditions are:
i) clear and consistent objectives to provide a standard of legal evaluation and resource;
ii) adequate causal theory, thus ensuring that the policy has an accurate theoiy of how to
iii) implementation structures that are legally structured so as to enhance the compliance of
charged with implementing the policy and of those groups that are the target of the policy;
iv) committed and skilful impIementers who apply themselves to using their discretion so as
realise policy objectives ; ' .
v) support of interest groups and sovereigns in the legislature and executive; and
vi) changes in socio-economic conditions that do not undermine the support of groups and
sovereigns or subvert the causal theory underpinningthe policy. Drawing on the insights of
Hjern and Porter into the inter-organisationa] dynamics of irnplementaiion
iund its network, Sabatier has suggested subsequently (1 986) that the top-down approach
on how illstihltions and social and economic conditions limit behaviouc He notes that
lakes place within the context of apolicy subsystetn, and is bound by 'relatively stable
and 'events external to the subsystem'.
' 1 . This modified model advocated by Sabatier has the distinctive feature of combining the
approach (to take into account the network that structures implementation) and the top-down
z approach (to take into account considerations within the system including the beliefs of
cli tes and the impact of external events). I~nplementationin this senselnay be thought of as a
learning process. Policy learning, for Sabatier, is something which essentially occurs within
systeln and its policy subsyitems. The framework is designed to analyse institutional
and to produce aconsensus which is not there in the original model. But the 1986 model of
Sabatier is regarded by a few scholars as inappropriate, as an explanatory lnodel of the policy
process. For instance, Elmore argues Lhat a variety of frameworks need to be deployed in the
:uialysis of iinplementation including "backward-mapping" (bottom-up) and "fol-wardmapping"
(top-down); and that policy-rnaking, to be effective in implementation terms, must adopt
rra~neworks. He also suggests four implementation models: systems management,
process, organisational development, and conflict and bargaining. Further, he argues that
of implementation s l ~ o ~n~otl bde regarded as rival hypotheses, which could be
e~npiricallyp roved,
but as ambiguous and conflicting frames of assumptions.
Recognising the problans arising out of inconsistencies and incompleteness associated with
~nodelsG, areth Morgan maintains that if we want to understand complexity, it is important
aclopt aclaitical and creative approach to thinking in tenns of models or metaphors. For him
can be no single metaphor which leads to a general theory. Each approach has comparative
advantages and provides some insight into a particular dimension of the reality of policy
implementation. Mapping the context of problems offers the possibility of understanding the
climensions of knowledge, beliefs, power and values, which frame policy-making and policy
i~nplernentation. As a student of public policy, the aim is to become capable in
understanding the
I'rameworks that are applied in the theory and practice of policy implementation in the
conlexts in
which they take place.


The term evaluation embraces a wide range of activities. Evaluations are undertaken in all
of life, in infonnal or formal ways. A distinction is made between the activities of appraisal,
and evaluation. 'Appraisal' is usually taken to mean a critical examination of a programme (or
policy) nonnally before the latter is approved for implementation and funding. Both
monitoring and
evaluation are undertaken to find out how a programme perfoms or has pel-fonned.
primarily covers issues of finance, andquality pertaining to inputs and outputs as well as
and time used in implementation. Usually, monitoring encompasses some current assessment
the progress of aproject, including difficulties in obtaining the expected results; these may
I be analysed more thoroughly in some subsequent evaluation. 'Evaluation' is amore
systematic and
I scientific attempt with emphasis on impacts and efficiency, effectiveness, relevance,
reliabiliv and
, sustainability. Rossi and Freeman (1993) specify it as a systematic application of social
I procedures for assessing the conceptt~alisationd, esign, implementation, and utility of social
: intervention programmes.
I Policy evaluation can be briefly described as aprocedure that appraises the worthwhileness
of a.
policy, and considers the special context andpoliticd and economic variables of the.situation.
1 example, evaluation research may pinpoint the extentio which the goals of apolicy are
besides identifying the constraints associated with it. Poor resul ts obviously imply lack of
and efficiency. However, policy evaluation may suggest changes in policy to obtain desired

Evaluation research also assumes that the programme can be scrapped, if it is not effective.
For a policy maker, policy evaluation is a means of getting the relevant information and
regarding policy problems, the effectiveness of past, and prevailing strategies for reducing or
eliminating the problems so as to improve the effectiveness of specific policies. Thus,
and risk in policy-making are reduced because of such knowledge and information,
accountability is enhanced, and administrative control over policy is appropriately increased.
\ evaluation, thus, plays a significant role that starts right from the identification of various
issues and selecting of the best course out of the various alternatives. Over the years, public
evaluation has become more sophisticated. From simple analysis of the outcomes and costbenefit
analysis, it has developed its own methodology. Built on the basic principles of maximising
minus costs, new methodology is also focusing on non-monetary policy outco~nesm,
retarding factors, equity, effectiveness, organisational and human factors and so on. Policy
has qlso become more proactive rather than reactive. Sometimes, it is too late to wait for the
outcome of policies after their implementation. As a result, there is an increasing trend
using preadoption projections or deductive modelling rather than just post-adoption before
after analysis. Moreover, policy evaluation is becoming increasingly inter-disciplinary,
drawing on
a variety of disciplinary sources for ideas as to means or policies for achieving given goals.
evaluation is increasingly using the components of political science, economics, sociology,
psychology, law, public administration, business administration, statistics, social work and so
Thus, there has been an increasing use of behavioural sciences as well as technology.
Policy evaluation is an important facet in the policy process. It has always been the
endeavour of
the policy makers to know about the utility and the outcomes of the policy through
Different scholars have identified different types and approaches of policy evaluation,
different methodologies for the exercise.
Types of Evaluation
Daniel Lel-ner suggests the following three types of evaluation:
i ) Process Evaluation
In an exercise of evaluation, policy analysts are concerned with the two questions. Firstly,
rL specific policy has been implemented in accordance with the policy guidelines issued at
the time
of pol icy-making or not. Such an evaluation is known as 'process evaluation'. It focuses bn
points: whether or not the policy has been aimed and directed at the appropriate and specific
target group or target area; and whether or not the different practices and intervention efforts
based o n strategies have been taken up as specified in the policy design or taken from the
explicated in such a design.
ii) Xrnpact Evaluation
lmpact evaluation attempts to evaluate the changes, both positive and negative, in terms of
attained. The conditions prevailing before the implementation of the policy and after are
in o r d e r to bring to the fore the impact of policy. Impact evaluation requires a design,
which allows
the investigator to demonstrate that the changes that occur are a function of the
intervention and treatment.
iii) Comprehensive Evaluation
Colnpl-ehensive'evaluation is the combination of process and impact evaluation as explained
Such a combination would bring to light, What actually is the outcome? or How it has been
possible? What are the drawbacks? How improvements could be ushered in? It does not mean
that exclusive use of either process or impact evaluation does not have any utility. However,
the point of public policy, it is comprehensiveevaluation which is more useful.
c 17-4 -2 - Evaluation: Approaches
Po1i cy eval~~atioisn b asically concerned with describing, judging, and exblaining policies;
formulation, implementation, and outcomes. It deals with the questions, What has been done?
Why and how things have been done? What has been achieved? What are the future
prospects or . options? In this process, analysts adopt different approaches. Some of the
routine approaches to

policy evaluation have been identified, such as, Front-endanalysis; Evaluabilily assessment;
evaltxation; Effectiveness evaluation, and Evaluation Synthesis approach.
By fi-ont-end analysis we mean the kind of work, which is being undertaken before a
decision is
made to go ahead of framing policy on aparticular issue. The need and magnitude of the
kind and number of persons or groups to be affected, amount of cost, cost-benefit feasibility,
are spine of the important parameters, which are taken care of at the pre-policy formulation
It enables the formulators to frame.policy which could deliver maximum goods with
inputs. Under thk evaluability assessment approach, a cdmparison of the policy's assumptions
inade with the stated goals and objectives of the policy and the points regarding rationdlity
utility of the assumptions are raised to ascertain that whether those could match the stated
of the policy. This approach serves to determine the feasibility and usefulness of performing
evaluation of theprograrnrhe's effectiveness. This approach lays the groundwork to answer
accountability questions. The purpose of processevaluation approach is to describe and
retrospectively, the processes of implemented policies; strategies adopted; cost incurred;
faced; and nature of interaction with the clients and other organisations concerned. It is meant
to find out what is lacking where so far as the process part is concerned; and how, and where
iinprovernents could be made. The effectiveness evaluation approach, like process approach,
also retrospective. Its purpose is to find out how well or badly a policy is implemented, what
been the outcomes, what is the relationship of the outcomes with the effectiveness of
orapolicy, and what changes are visible, etc. For determining the changes, thecomparisons
the past conditions of the same group or conditions in expkri~nentaal nd control groups have
to be
made. Finally the Evaluation Synthesis Approach (ESA) is a highly versatile approach. It has
the - b
capability of serving all three kinds of evaluation purposes, that is, formulation,
and accountability. The ESA reanalyses the results or findings from one or anumber of
fol-identifying what have been known about a policy. It has the capacity to address various
questions, of course, depending upon the availability of evaluations made and data collected.
could be both quantitative as well as qualitative.
17.4.3 Methods of Evaluation

The various methods available for studying structures and changes of phenomena in societies
be utilised for policy evaluation also, with some adjustments depending upon the purpose and
approach. In social sciences it has becomeco~nrnonto distinguish broadly between two iwajor
approaches: quantitative and qutilitative. In the words of Casley and Kumar (1988), the most
obvious distinction between the two is that quantitative methods produce numerical data and
qualitative methods produce infol~nationin words..
In evaluative studies, quantitative analysis may be sought to be used pi-imarily for measuring
ef fects
andimpacis. Quantitative methods in policy evaluation, most cotnmonly, include benefit-cost
cost effectiveness analysis, experimental designs and statistical surveys.

i) Benefit-Cost Analysis

Stokey and Zeckhauser claim that benefit-cost analysis is the principal analytical framework,
which u is used to evaluate public expenditure decisions. Basically benefit-cost analysis
requires systematic cnu~nerationo f all benefits and all costs, tangible and intangible, readily
quantifiable or difficult to
measure, which will accrue if aparticularproject is adopted. With all this information at hand,
analyst should be able to subtract the total cost of each alternative from the total sum of its
and identify the net gain in each case. '
In most cases, the costs may be fairly realistically quantified. Rossi andFreeinan (1993)
inention * ,
five means of monetising benefits:
e ~ i r e cmt easurement -
e Market valuation s
e Economic estimation (indirect q~~antificatiobnas ed on expliciq' stated assumptions) .-
Hypothetical questions (asking target people, how they consider basically non-monetary
benefits to be worth in monetary ternis)
Observing political choices (transforming observed political prioritisation into some judged
indicated monetary value).
In practice, however, except the first two, rest are not free from subjectivity.

i j) Cos t-Effectiveness Analysis ---
Cost-effectiveness is considered to be a simplified version of benefit-cost analysis. It is a
for evaluating various alternatives in te~mosf tile degree to which they efficiently lead to the
of stated objectives. The qltemative adjudged most preferable is the one which produces
maximum effectiveness for a given level of cost or the minimum cost for a fixed level of
effectiveness. This,
method is not only useful for comparing proposed alternative policies, but also for evaluating
c~~rreonrt p revious policies. In the opinion of Rossi and Freeman, the cost-effectiveness
in its conventional form, is similar to the benefitxost anaIysis except that monetising is
only of the costs, however, the benefits being expressed in direct outcome units.
iii) Experimental Method
Experimental methods are not uncolnmon in social research. The basis of evaluation is an
laboratory-like situation in which some units in a population.who received some service
under the
policy measures have been randomly selected, while others have not received it. In evaluating
perfonnance of such policies and programmes, samples of different groups (who have
and who have not received) are selected for comparative analysis. Relevant variables of the

are then studied before and after, and even during the programme period in order to find out
difference of impact. Subsequently, statistical methods are used for testing the data for
'levels. One or inore control groups can be selected to test the impact of apolicy.
iv) Statistical Surveys
Survey method is quite common in social research. In policy evaluation sphere, surveys are
useful. Information (data) is collected and analysed by applying stetistical tools especially
with [he
help of sampling techniques, questionnaires and interviews supported by observation method
secondary data. Suitable hypotheses may be developed after idenlifying appropriate variables.
Groups from the population are selected on the basis of certain characteristics, such as, the
level of
education, income, size of landholding, age, sex, social backgrounds, etc. Subsequently,
are sought relating to programme or policy interventions and association between degree of
of the pol icy/pl.ogra~nmea nd different characteristics of the samples are tested statistically.
number of authors also distinguish between three types of studies of change in one
population, that
is, trend design, cohort design and panel design. Such designs arc used to study the changes
" different angles over different time periods.
v) Qualitative Methods
In a number of caseslsituations the information cannot be quantified (i.e. expressed in
terms) or cannot be qua~~tifiiend a ny meaningful way for the purpose at hand. Moreovel;
* data usually have to be analysed in a context, which cannot be, or can only be partly,
consequently, the data will have to be wholly or largely explained q~ialitativelyB. roadly
a qualitative approach is necessay in the following situations (Dale):
When it is not possible to study statistically representative samples of beneficiaries, '
When changes are the result of complex processes, involving many interrelated factors.
e For analysing relevance, due to the value judgments involved. . '
e When sh~dyingth e ol.ganisationalissues (involved in policy inlplementation).
The above analyses of methods of evaluation clearly indicates that both quantitative and
methods are equally important in the exercise of policy evaluation.
vi) Model Building
t /
In order to effectively evaluate costs and benefits associated with any given Wlicy-and to aid
in the search for the alternatives to such policy-models are often called inta-p.lay.In their
crudest form, such models may be: imply aseries of tables or graphs systematically displaying
and weighing the relevant data. Other models inay involve the use of mathematical equations
or computer simulations. The main purpose of models is to evaluate or gain insight into the
value of a given
policy or alternatives than merely applying judgment and experience.

                                                 UNIT –IV

The American society, by the end of the 1960s was faced with a number of problems. They
included dissatisfaction with the Vietnam war, population increase, environmental problems,
increasing social conflicts and economic crisis which made the younger generation of
intellectuals question the efficacy and speed of the response of the political and
administrative systems. Serious concerns were raised regarding the efficiency and economy
in administration. It was felt that the dissatisfaction arising from the persisting turbulent
environment calls for restoration of values and public purpose in government. Human and
value-oriented administration was suggested. It was felt necessary to inject the goals of being
responsive to the needs of clients and ensuring social equity in service delivery. This thinking
led to the emergence of New Public Administration (NPA). It intended to provide a
philosophical outlook for public administration.
It was during 1967-68 that various efforts were initiated in the USA, with the aim of
providing a multidisciplinary, public policy and social equity-oriented focus to public
administration. The significant landmarks in this direction include:
1. The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service
2. The Philadelphia Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration.
3. The Minnowbrook Conference – I
4. The Minnowbrook Conference - II
The American Society of Public Administration (ASPA), for quite sometime was concerned
about the growth of public administration as a discipline with distinct identity and enlarging
its scope in the curriculum offered by university departments. In 1966, John Honey of
Syracuse University undertook an evaluation of Public Administration as a field of study in
the US universities. Certain problems confronting the discipline were highlighted. These
• Uncertainty and confusion over the status of the discipline.
 Inadequate funds at the disposal of the university departments for promoting the
• Institutional shortcomings;and
• Lack of communication between the scholars and practitioners of Public
It recommended generation of resources from government and business, encouraging higher
studies in public administration, interlinking university departments and government through
appointment of professors to positions in government and vice versa, and setting up of a
National Commission on Public Service Education to provide leadership in the field.
The report, inspite of its shortcomings, laid the basis for examining the role of Public
Administration in generating social awareness.
In 1967, the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences under the chairmanship of
James C. Charlesworth, organised a Conference on “The Theory and Practice of Public
Administration”. The major viewpoints that emerged out of the conference included:
• Flexibility in the scope of the discipline that would facilitate its development. The
massive increase in the functions and responsibilities of the government calls for
widening of the scope of public administration.
• The dichotomy between policy and administration was considered meaningless, due to
the interlinkages between the policy making and implementation functions of the

• Public administration as a discipline and practice needs to focus more on social
problems such as poverty, unemployment, environment and so on.
• Promoting social equity and other values such as efficiency, accountability,
administrative responsiveness, people’s participation in decision-making.
• Excessive emphasis on adherence to other internal mechanisms increases the hierarchy,
and administrative rigidity. Hence to enhance its efficacy, there is need for
management flexibility and other innovations.
• Training of administrators in professional schools.
• Training programmes in Public Administration to sharpen not just managerial abilities
and skills but to deepen the social sensitivity of the trainees.
• Emphasis on administrative ethics in the training programmes.
This conference is considered quite significant, as it provided a broad philosophical basis to
the discipline of public administration. The outcome was the convening of the Minnowbrook
Conference of 1968.


The 1960s in the USA was marked by on optimistic view about public administration’s
ability to solve the country’s technological as well as social problems. The social
atmosphere was characterised by a steady decline in the commitment of
Americans to institutions such as family, church, media, profession and
government. This was due to cynicism amongst the younger people towards the
institutions. Also the Black Americans were denied a share in the growing
prosperity of the country in the 1950’s and 1960s. It was against this backdrop
that in 1968 Dwight Waldo of Syracuse University had taken the initiative of
examining certain key concerns. The idea was to analyse the changing
perspectives in the field of public administration, amongst those who experienced
the Great Depression, New Deal, World War II and those who entered the field in
the 1960s. It was intended to examine the enduring effect of varying perspectives
on public administration and government.
This conference was held at Minnowbrook by the young scholars of Public Administration
under the guidance of Dwight Waldo. The basic objective of this was to examine the ways of
making public administration responsive to social concerns and assume the role of a change
agent in reforming the society. The New Public Administration emerged out the discourses of
this conference.
The Minnowbrook Conference focused on certain important concerns of public
administration. These included:
1. The public policy approach to public administration, which has become important as it
has a significant effect on the quality of government.
2. In addition to efficiency and economy, in implementation of policies social equity, was
considered a key objective.
3. The earlier notion of public administrators being mere implementers of fixed decisions,
it was felt, is no longer valid. In addition, values such as ethics, honesty and
responsibility in the provision of public service holds good in the practice of
public administration.
4. The Minnowbrook perspective argued that, as public needs change, government
agencies often outlive their purposes. Hence wherever needed, cut back of
government agencies, needs to be resorted to.
5. Responsive government has to manage change, not just growth.
6. Active and participative citizenry, it has been considered, needs to be a part of public
7. The efficacy and usefulness of the concept of hierarchy have been challenged.
8. Implementation has come to occupy a significant place in the decision-making process.
9. Though pluralism is accepted as a useful device for explaining the exercise of public
power, it is felt, that it has ceased to be the standard for the practice of public
The young academicians who participated in the conference were sensitive to the
problems in the functioning of American democracy. Hence, they attempted to provide a
new focus to public administration.
18.4.1 New Public Administration: Goals
The scholars emphasised on five major goals that public administration needs to take
cognisance of, namely relevance, values, social equity, change and client orientation.
Relevance: Traditionally, efficiency and economy have been the key concerns of public
administration. The discipline, the conference felt, needs to be relevant to the contemporary
issues and problems. The excessive management orientation in the discipline needs to be
done away with and public administration has to deal with political and administrative
implications of administrative action. The scholars desired radical changes in the curriculum
of the discipline to make it more relevant to the realities of public life.
Values: The earlier view regarding the value–neutral orientation of public administration has
been vehemently criticised and rejected. The conference made a plea for a greater concern
with values, issues of justice, freedom, equality and human ethics. It was held that
commitment to values would enable the discipline to promote the cause of the disadvantaged
sections in society.
According to Nicholas Henry (1975) “The focus was disinclined to examine such traditional
phenomena as efficiency, effectiveness, budgeting and administrative techniques, conversely
the NPA was very much aware of normative theory, philosophy and activism. The question it
raised dealt with values, ethics ….. if there was an overriding tone to the NPA, it was a moral
Social Equity: The then prevailing social unrest in the society, strengthened the belief that
social equity needs to be the primary aspect of administration. The conference made a plea
for distributive justice and equity to be the basic concerns of Public Administration. George
Frederickson (1971) considered that public administration which fails to work for changes to
redress the deprivation of minorities is likely to be eventually used to repress the minorities.
The NPA protagonists were in favour of making the discipline proactive towards major social
Change: Public Administration is generally considered to be status-quo oriented. The
conference attempted to make the discipline more relevant and social equity oriented through
change and innovation. The administrator was considered a change agent. Hence, the
discipline needs to be receptive to change.

Participation: The conference advocated greater participation by all employees in an
organisation in matters of public policy formulation, implementation and revision. In
addition, participation from individuals and groups from outside the organisation was sought
to make public administration more responsive and client-oriented.
Client Orientation: It was the first Minnowbrook conference that had taken the lead in
identifying client orientation as a key goal of public administration. This called for a change
in the attitudes of bureaucrats to be people-oriented.
The Minnowbrook conference made a significant contribution in changing the complexion of
public administration by advocating client orientation, social sensitivity and normative
concerns. The normative approach called on the government to adopt the objective of
reducing the economic and social disparities and enhance the life opportunities for everyone
in the society.
18.4.2 New Public Administration: Anti-Goals
Robert Golembiewski identified three anti-goals or situations that the NPA needs to abandon.
These are:
1. Anti-Positivism: Positivism implies absolute uncertainty about facts which are not certain.
This makes administration more rigid. The NPA
movement intended to reduce the rigidities in administration to make it more adaptable,
receptive and problem-solving.
2. Anti-Technology: This implies human beings are not to be treated as cogs in the
machine, to foster the traditional goals of economy and efficiency.
3. Anti-Hierarchy: Hierarchy as an organisational principle promotes bureaucracy,
brings in rigidities, kills creativity, innovation and isolates the administrator from
the surrounding environment. Hence, the NPA scholars condemned hierarchical
structures as traditionally been propagated by Public Administration.
18.4.3 New Public Administration: Features

George Frederickson has referred to certain key features of New Public Administration.
These are:

1. Change and Responsiveness: There is change all over in the social, political,
economic and technological environments. This calls for administration to bring
about necessary and appropriate changes internally as well as externally to the
environment. Necessary flexibility and adaptability also need to be introduced in
the functioning of administration.
2. Rationality: This calls for judging the efficacy of administrators’ actions not only from
their point of view of the government, but also from the citizens’ perspective.
3. Structural Changes: New Public Administration calls for experimenting with
different organisational structures in tune with the relevant situation and needs of
environment. There is need for small, decentralised, flexible hierarchies to
facilitate citizen interaction.
4. Emphasis on Multi-disciplinary Perspective: Public Administration is influenced not
just by one single thought, but several knowledge streams. Hence, an
understanding of various approaches including political, management, human
relations, is essential to contribute to its growth.
The dominant themes deliberated in the conference included relevance and anti positivism,
dissatisfaction with the state of the discipline, and a concern for ethics, motivation, improved
human relations, client-centered responsiveness and social equity.


The Second Minnobrook Conference was held after a gap of twenty years. The conference,
held on September 4, 1988, was attended by sixty-eight scholars, and practitioners of public
administration and other disciplines such as history, economics, political science, psychology
and so on. The conference was held against the backdrop of the changing role of state and
government, more privatisation, contracting out, and increasing role for non-state actors in
the governance process.
The first Minnowbrook Conference held in the 1960s, was a period, which was characterised
by influence of public purpose, the Vietnam War, urban riots, and campus unrest,
accompanied by growing cynicism towards all institutions, especially the government. But
the scenario in the 1980s was entirely different, with domination of the philosophy of
privatisation and a concern for private interest. The Minnowbrook II aimed to compare and
correct the changing epochs of public administration. This was attempted through a
comparison of theoretical and research perspectives of the 1960s with that of the 1980s and
their respective influences on the conduct of governmental and other public affairs.
Since 1968 there has been a sea change in the context of American Public Administration.
Due to change in the nature of state, emphasis on governance, privatisation, contracting out, a
general preference amongst the American public has been towards lesser government. New
methods of improved responsiveness of government have not been devised. Added to this has
been increased levels of poverty and unemployment, especially amongst urban areas. The
discipline of public administration underwent significant charges. Its field expanded since
1960s, with many universities in USA offering programmes in public administration. Also it
become more interdisciplinary in nature compared to the 1960s when it was a part of Political
The conference, which drew participants from diverse areas such as policy sciences,
economics, planning, urban studies, attempted to deliberate upon wider themes such as ethics,
social equity, human relations and so on, thereby ensuring continuity in intellectual interests.
Due to changing scenario, some new thrust areas such as leadership, technology policy, legal
and economic perspectives also found place in the deliberations. The conference reiterated
the necessity of government as a tool for strengthening society. Public administration, in the
changing scenario, was to renew its capacity to cope with the problems of emerging future.
The need to strengthen and establish linkages between the theory and practice of public
administration on the one hand, and between scholars and administrators on the other
officials was emphasised. We will be discussing in detail about the major thrust areas of this

18.5.1 Major Thrust Areas
Eleven themes emerged out of the deliberations of Minnowbrook II. The first five themes
provided a historical perspective, which aimed at comparing the discussion at Minnowbrook
II with the legacy of Minnowbrook I. The last six themes focus on the current and future
visions of the theme. These are discussed below:
1. Though social equity was a predominant theme at Minnowbrook I, it was felt that in
the present times it is much closer to reality than it was in 1968.
2. Strong concerns were expressed about democratic values and the centrality of public
administration in promoting them. The concern was manifest in the focus on
ethics, accountability and leadership in public administration.
3. The debate between the normative and behaviourist perspectives has not diminished.
4. Diversity in society and in the work force was accepted as a basic value among the
participants. Diversity was identified in three main contexts: the issue of
generalists vs. specialists; racial, ethnic and sexual diversity; and gender diversity.
But not much attention was given towards the reality that heterogeneity brings,
and on the conflict resolution strategies, arbitration skills and values clarification.
5. The radical reforms that emerged from the discussions in the conference were
considered to be in the nature of short-term goals. It was felt that the environment
in which public administration must perform is so complex that a meaningful
long-term vision is neither reasonable nor perhaps even possible.
6. The discussions, gave an impression of the prevalence of “a professional
ethnocentricity” or parochialism indicating that public administration as a field, is
not much concerned with examining interdisciplinary issues.
7. There was a strong negative attitude towards business as an enterprise. The
deliberations exhibited a disdainful acceptance of capitalism and business. One of
the challenges to public administration it was felt is to manage the “seams” of
society, than building on the best that business as well as public sector offer.
8. Impatience with the constraints of public personnel systems was evident. A need was
felt for innovative personnel practices, to bring out the best in the employees and
reinforce high productivity.
9. Unwillingness to address technological issues was evident, though some areas such as
artificial intelligence, design science, expert systems, etc. formed part of some of
the themes.

10. Unwillingness to look at the specifics of what government should do was evident. In
spite of the discussions focusing on the inevitability of administrators exerting
control over policy agendas, the politics-administration dichotomy was still alive
(Guy, 1989).
The deliberations of Minnowbrook II Conference, highlight certain key concerns. The first is
the changing nature of American public administration, the diversity in the problems faced by
the government such as AIDS, nuclear wastes, budget and trade deficits and so on. Hence the
environment within which the administrator works has become substantially more complex
than it used to be. This makes it essential for them to rely much more on facilitation, dialogue
and negotiation. The schools of public administration have a key role in this context. The
curricula need to be revised with a view towards highlighting the societal as well as political
context, emphasising inter-personal skills and techniques. This, the conference participants
opined, makes a strong case for developing a theory of public administration.
A second proposition emphasised the need for administrators to keep in view the
requirements of democracy and employ democratic process-based methodologies in the
performance of their duties. This was felt necessary due to the (1) need for positive action by
public officials for the fulfilment of its potential by representative government and, (2) the
underlying obligation to advance democracy, which is an ethical requirement of public
A major thrust at Minnowbrook II was on correcting the imbalance between the public needs
in the present times and the resources devoted to their amelioration. To maximise the value of
the administrator’s role in these situations, it was felt that a bureaucracy which is concerned
more with dialogue and consensus was required. In the backdrop of the American system of
government, the bureaucracy needs to consciously utilise the democratic methodologies in its
work. Hence, it was emphasised that practising public administrators need to be more
proactive in the performance of their duties. Also openness and public participation in
administration need to be encouraged (Ceary, 1989).
According to Mohit Bhattacharya, (2001) the distinctive character of the Second Conference
is evident from its emphasis on the following thrust areas:
1. It set its visions to the near future, without trying to be radical. There was a tacit
acceptance of the fact that the environment of public administration is exceedingly
complex and the problems are of huge proportions. Hence, a meaningful longterm
vision is neither reasonable nor feasible.
2. The scholars in the discipline, while aware of their indebtedness to other disciplines,
exhibited a strong sense of intellectual parochialism. The general model was not
to lose disciplinary identify. Rather, there was keenness to rebuild the discipline.
3. Even if ‘privatisation’ was accepted tacitly, there was a strong negative attitude toward
business. The Minnowbrook-II world view was expressed in terms of a curious
tension between capitalism and democracy that resulted in “an unusual form of a
truncated capitalist economy operating within a truncated democracy”. Against
this backdrop, public administration has to rely on the best that business offers as
well as the best that the non-profit public sector offers.
4. Public personnel practices came in for closer scrutiny, and the discussions underlined
the need for innovative personnel practices in order to move away from public
managers’ current inability to hire employees on a timely basis, promote the best
employees, and reinforce high productivity.
5. The participants had been generally unwilling to deal with the technological issues.
“Technology was faulted more than vaunted” it was said. There was general
reluctance to idolise technology as a necessary tool for improving public policy.
6. The specifics of what government should do were avoided.
The Second Minnowbook Conference made an attempt to examine the theory and practice of
public administration in the changing scenario. It tried to project a future vision for public
administration by balancing the business and public sector. The effort has been on rebuilding
the discipline and not to lose its identity.


New Public Administration had a significant impact on the discipline and profession of
public administration. In both the conferences, an attempt has been made to relate public
administration with the prevailing socio-economic scenario and the dominant philosophical
concerns of the times.
The second Minnowbrook Conference was held in a changed scenario, especially in
American Public Administration. It was marked by cynicism towards big government and
increasing public preference for less for government. The state underwent a change in nature
from the welfare to the regulatory state. It has been characterised by more privatisation,
outsourcing and predominance of private over public purpose values. In addition, there has
been a change in the nature of the discipline of public administration. The field, which was an
integral part of the political science in the 1960s, became more multi-disciplinary, analytical
and theoretically sophisticated.
There are variations in the mood and tone of the two conferences. While the 1968 conference
was contentious, confrontational and revolutionary, the 1988 conference was more civil, and
practical. The 1968 dialogue was considered anti-behavioural, while that of the 1988
conference was more receptive to the contributions of behavioural science to public
Minnowbrook I Conference, intended to redefine public administration at the then prevailing
socio-political and economic scenario. During the intervening period of nearly twenty years,
when the second conference was held, the environmental setting of public administration
underwent a sea change. People’s confidence in public administration, especially the
bureaucracy decreased considerably. Managerialism, and privatisation have gained respect on
the agenda of public administration scholars. Yet, there was also marked sense of confidence
in public organisations in tackling societal problems.
The conferees of 1988, according to Marc Holzer, sketched two arguments for public
administration as a challenging pursuit. First is the citizen seeking a renewed sense of
community and shared endeavour, emphasising interpersonal values and de-emphasising
personal gains and the second is to look at public administrators as an important link in the
social system, since government is an inevitable tool for strengthening society. Hence, this
involves adherence to two key measures. Firstly, to establish a linkage between theory and
practice and between public administrators and other government officials. To facilitate this,
the schools of public administration need to build the theoretical capacities of the
practitioners of public administration by providing a number of educational programmes and
enriching communication through new techniques.
Secondly, public administration, it was felt, must be amenable to radical reforms. To build,
equitable, sensitive, open and productive organisations some key concepts require attention
which include competitiveness not only between the sectors but between public sector
organisations, compensation systems, improved capacities, changes in recruitment practices
and management-employee relations.
The first Minnowbrook Conference challenged public administration to become proactive
with regard to social issues. The second Minnowbrook Conference focused its attention on
examination of issues that help to strengthen the discipline of public administration. A key
assertion is that public administration offers the hope for developing policies that ameliorate
problems because it operates at the margins of all the disciplines and is the only institution
that interacts with all other institutions and individuals within the society. No doubt the
second Minnowbrook Conference identified certain basic concerns that if taken cognisance of
and put in practice, can lead to the development of a theory of public administration, with
epistemological and research methodology components. Public administration, it is felt needs
to draw inputs from various disciplines and construct a relevant discipline integrating other
disciplines. It has to be more practitioner-oriented.
There have been criticisms against the New Public Administration. Some academicians
consider it as nothing new except that it made a plea for administration being responsive to
societal problems prevalent during that period. Also doubts were expressed whether the new
thinking would sustain for long.

Yet New Public Administration, made a moderate impact, by redefining public
administration because of its on a few emphasis key concepts such as
participation, responsiveness, client-orientation and so on. An attempt was made
to bring administration closer to people and strengthen its capacities to solve
societal problems. It stirred intellectual thinking towards democratising public
administration, building a theory of public administration in tune with its interdisciplinary
nature, thereby attempting to reform public administration in its
outlook and functioning.



The impact of globalisation on public administration has been significant, emphasising
change, reinventing pubic administration with a management orientation. From the
early 1980s, serious challenges have been posed to administration to reduce reliance
on bureaucracy, curtail growth of expenditure and seek new ways of delivering public
services. New Public Management Perspective prescribes a set of reform measures of
organising and offering of services, with market mechanisms, to the citizens.
Beginning 1980s, there has been a widespread attack on public sector and
bureaucracy as the governments all over began to consume scarce resources. The
expansion of government has been into too many areas, which could as well be in the
domain of private sector. Bureaucracy was considered to be too unwieldy,
unresponsive, inefficient, ineffective, and unable to withstand the competition. A
culmination of several factors has given too rise to NPM perspective. These include:
21.2.1 Increase in Government Expenditure
During the 1970s and 1980s, the excessive increase in government expenditure, in many
counties brought to light the wastage, mis-management, increasing debts coupled with
corruption and inefficiencies in governmental operations. The rise in government expenditure
along with poor economic performance led to the questioning of the need for large
bureaucracies. Hence, attempts were initiated to slow down and reverse government growth
in terms of increasing public spending as well as staffing. This paved the way for a shift
towards privatisation, quasi-privatisation of certain activities, and moving away from core
government institutions.
21.2.2 Influence of neo-liberalism

There has been a powerful influence of neo-liberal political ideology during the 1980s and
1990s. You have already discussed about this in detail in Course 1. Neo-liberalism favoured
dominant presence of market forces than the state. Concepts such as efficiency, markets,
competition, consumer choice, etc. had gained predominance. Neo liberalism favoured
cutting back of welfare state, maximising individual liberty and freedom, and encouraging
market mechanisms leading to equitable outcomes. Free markets unrestrained by government,
removal of barriers to facilitate the free flow of goods and money and privatisation were
considered significant measures for economic growth. The then prevailing scenario favoured
roll back by the state and the space created by it to be filled with the private sector. The state
was expected to promote the efficient functioning of markets.
21.2.3 Impact of New Right Philosophy
The New Right Philosophy propagated in the 1970s in UK as well as USA, favoured markets
as more efficient for allocation of resources. Excessive reliance on state was not considered
appropriate and it propagated lesser role for it and opted for self-reliance. The new right
denounced the role of bureaucracy, and proposed minimal role for state in provision of social
assistance. This perspective had a global impact in generating a consensus about the
efficiency of market forces. Markets were considered to play a key role in the creation of
economic wealth and employment.

21.2.4 Public Choice Approach
The public choice approach had a major impact on the evolution of the new public
management perspective. Economists such as Tullock, Niskanen, Buchanan propounded it
and the central tenet of their approach is that all human behaviour is dominated by ‘self
interest’. The human being is considered to be a utility maximiser, who intends to increase
net benefits from any action or decision. The voters, politicians and bureaucrats are
considered to be motivated by self interest. The vote maximising behaviour of politician and
self-aggrandisement bureaucrats tend to affect the collective interests of the society. There
are very few incentives to control costs. Such behaviours and attitudes, according to the
public choice theorists, lead to an increase in size and costs of government and inflated
departmental budgets. Bureaucracy, being the core of public administration, is held
responsible for the declining quality of public services. This thinking led to the new paradigm
of government sensitive to market forces, which meant remodelling of government according
to concepts of competition and efficiency. The efficiency of institutions and processes such as
market and decentralised service delivery has become attractive as a consequence of this

21.2.5 Washington Consensus
The 1980s and 1990s have been characterised by questioning of the role of state in economic
development. It was increasingly felt that the poverty and economic stagnation, especially in
the developing countries, was the result of the state undermining the operation of market
forces. The need for bringing about adjustments in the economy on various fronts such as
financial and banking sectors, and reduced role for the state in economic development have
been considered indispensable. This led to the emergence of Washington consensus. It
basically comprises the reform measures promoted by Brettonwoods institutions
(International Monetary Fund and World Bank), the US Congress and Treasury, and several
think tanks, which aimed to address the economic crisis, especially by Latin American
countries during the 1980s. This is also termed as structural adjustment cum stabilisation
programme which emphasised the need for sound micro economic and financial policies,
trade and financial liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation of domestic markets. This
strategy, gradually adopted in many developing countries, promoted minimal state that
refrains from economic intervention, which focuses on sound monetary policy, provision of
education, health and infrastructure. This has also been responsible for giving a push to
market forces.

The emergence of NPM perspective has been one of the recent striking trends in the
discipline of public administration. Its focus basically is on the following:
1. Restructuring government operations along market lines;
2. Distinguishing strategic policy formulation from implementation;
3. Emphasising performance evaluation and quality improvement; and
4. Stressing upon effective services provision and value for money for the customer.


New Public Management Perspective has subjected to critical questioning the size, role and
structure of public sector. Concepts such as efficiency of state vs. market, managerial
orientation in governmental activities, contracting out and privatisation started gaining
prominence in many countries. NPM intendeds to promote a new thinking that:
• the present changing scenario requires government reforms;
• there is a need for change in the mindset of government from mere execution of tasks to
performance orientation; and
• public organisations need to be risk-taking, mission-oriented and service-oriented.
The core characteristics of NPM perspective include:
• Productivity: gaining more services from lesser revenues
• Marketisation: replacing traditional bureaucratic structures, mechanisms and
processes with market strategies
• Service orientation: keeping the needs of customers as a priority
• Decentralisation: transferring service delivery responsibilities to lower levels
• Policy-administration dichotomy:making a distinction between policy and
In addition, it has certain distinct characteristics as follows:
1. An emphasis on managerial skills to complement policy-making skills
2. Disaggregation of large public organisations into separate self-contained units
having their own goals, plans and requisite autonomy.
3. Adoption of private sector managerial practices by public sector
4. Setting explicit measurable performance standards for public organisations
5. Controlling the performance of public organisation by pre-determined output
6. Preference for private ownership, contracting out and competition in public service
7. Promoting competition both among public sector organisations as well as public
and private sectors.
8. Strengthening of strategic capacities at the centre.
9. Making services more responsive to the needs of the customer and ensuring value
for money.
10. Steering role of government rather than a direct provider of goods and services
11. Use of information technology to facilitate better service delivery.


Public administration is a key component of all human endeavours towards betterment of
lives. In the present day globalisation scenario, alternative approaches have emerged in the
arena of provision of public services. The New Public Management (NPM) perspective has
brought in reforms, which attempted to create a new entrepreneurial, user-oriented culture in
the public organisations with focus on performance measurement and autonomy to the
organisations and individuals in contrast to the traditional model. But the basic question is
can private sector interests and initiatives replace the pursuance of public service motives.
Market philosophy cannot be an adequate substitute for the ‘public interest’, which is the core
of the governmental operations. The entry of economic and managerial principles into the
public sector affects not only the organisation concerned, but also the nature of the state as a
whole. This has raised certain critical issues within the state, between state and market as
well as state and society.
The ongoing reforms focus on privatisation, marketisation, contracting out,
debureaucratisation, downsizing, etc. Doubts arise regarding the efficacy of this management
framework to the developing countries especially, due to divergence between market
economy’s interests and pursuance of social concerns. 21.5.1 Clash of Values between
Traditional Public Administration and New Public Management
The New Public Management (NPM), perspective does not propagate just implementation of
new techniques, but also makes a case for propagation of a new set of values derived from the
private sector. Public service as distinct from the private sector is characterised by certain
basic norms such as impartiality, equality, justice and accountability. These seem to be
overridden by market values such as competitiveness, profitability, efficiency and
productivity. Some apprehend that this could lead to weakening of public interest,
challenging the legitimacy of public service.
21.5.2 Managerial Predominance over Policy Capacity
New Public Management gives significance to managerial principles and practices and does
not assign importance to policy making. Policy is the most important component of the
administrative system. Some of the NPM reforms are likely to have effect on the policy
rendering function of the bureaucrats. For example, the practice of contractual employment
for civil servants might undermine their capacity to render effective policy advice to political
representatives. Also the practice in vogue in some countries of recruiting personnel from
private sector or using consultants to render advice on policy matters, according to some, is
said to undermine the significance of policy-making capacity in government.
21.5.3 Lack of Clarity of Relationship between Citizens and Political Representatives
NPM fails to establish a clear-cut relationship between citizens and politicians. In any
democracy people have a key role having direct relationship between their elected
representatives. The politicians also are expected to be responsive to their needs and demands
through varied ways. This way, the state is able to control the society on the basis of a
democratic mandate from the people. But for NPM model, market mechanisms play a
dominant role and fail to indicate the ways through which people in a market system can
contribute towards creating a suitable democratic system.
21.5.4 Absence of a Clear Cut Concept of Accountability
Public administration, as we all know, places emphasis on democratic accountability. This
provides the citizens a direct and effective means of ensuring accountability as they could
vote the elected representatives out of office whenever they feel like. The processes, laws and
hierarchical controls are intended to make administration efficient and accountable to public.
NPM envisages enhanced accountability, as one of its goals, but the focus is more on results
or outputs. With the market forces playing a key role, there is a fear of dilution of the concept
of hierarchical accountability. NPM is more managerial in nature than political, which
emphasises on the strategic role of public managers. Yet, it lacks clarity in defining the roles
of politicians and bureaucrats. We shall be discussing about the changing concept of
accountability in Unit 19 in Course 013 on Public Systems Management of this Programme.
21.5.5 Promotion of Individualistic Ideas in Place of Collective Interests
Promotion of collective interests affecting the majority is a distinct feature of democracy, but
New Public Management is considered to be an individualistic philosophy that fails to take
cognisance of the collective demands of the society. The market-oriented restructuring,
especially, in a developing country is bound to affect certain categories of society particularly
the poor, peasants and labourers due to its repercussions such as withdrawal of subsidies,
reduction in the work force, and cutbacks in welfare programmes.

21.5.6 Citizen vs. Customer Orientation
New Public Management (NPM) provides customer orientation to government. It calls for
empowerment of customers, increased citizen choices, strengthening the government in
providing public choices in meeting the needs of the customer. This is in contrast with the
conventional public administration, which emphasises on effective and equitable public
service. The increasing emphasis on customer orientation is the fallout of the public choice
theory and application of market economics to the government that promotes provision of
choices by the market forces. George Frederickson(1996) in bringing out the differences
between the New Public Administration and Reinventing Movement propounded by Osborne
and Gaebler in USA, points out that the latter focuses on empowerment of individual
customers to make their own choices. The value of individual satisfaction is judged more
than the value of achieving collective democratic consensus. NPM initiatives intend to
empower consumers thereby diluting the citizens’ rights. It gives prominence to those who
can pay for services thereby claiming efficient services.
Many, as negating the values of social justice and equity, consider new Public Management’s
emphasis on efficiency. The anti-state ideology it pursues leads to decline in basic social
services provision, creating a bunch of inequities. The NPM reforms’ reigning themes are
achievement of objectives of economy and efficiency. But the issues of social equity, justice,
accountability, responsiveness, transparency and participation are equally important to be
taken cognisance of by any system.
New Public Management reforms are not generalised prescriptions solutions that can hold
good and yield positive results for all the countries. It cannot be a single dominant
administrative reform strategy for developing countries. Any reform initiative has to
be in conformity with the local conditions. Public administration has to be set and
looked at from its own environmental context. NPM reforms basically originated in
the west and hence its impact is bound to vary. As Caiden (1991) remarks, “unless
reconciled with local ecology, universal formulas of administrative reform based on
western concepts were unlikely to work”. There has been lack of research studies to
examine the impact of NPM reforms on developing countries. Also there have been
no proper indicators of measurement of NPM reforms. There are methodological
problems in assessing the costs and benefits of the reforms. For instance, it is not
feasible to assess the effect of performance-related play, short-term contracts on the
morale and motivation of staff and the productivity of public sector.

Post a Comment

* Please Don't Spam Here. All the Comments are Reviewed by Admin.