PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Nature, Scope and Approaches

Complete Study Notes in Plain Language

Covering All Topics: From Classical Theory to Feminist Perspectives

Ch Topic

1 Meaning, Nature and Scope of the Discipline

2 Evolution of the Discipline

3 New Public Management (NPM)

4 Comparative Public Administration

5 Good Governance, Digital Governance & Corporate Governance

6 New Public Service Approach

7 Feminist Perspective in Public Administration

 Chapter 1

Meaning, Nature and Scope of the

Discipline

What is Public Administration?

Public Administration is simply about how governments work in practice. It includes all the
activities involved in running a government — planning, organising, directing, coordinating, and
controlling — to achieve goals that benefit the public. Think of it as the 'engine room' of
government: while politicians decide what should be done, public administrators figure out how
to actually do it.

As a subject of study, Public Administration looks at how government agencies are set up, how
they make decisions, how they deliver services, and how they can be made more efficient and
fair.

Simple Example
When the government decides to build schools in rural areas, that is a political decision. But
figuring out the budget, hiring contractors, managing timelines, and ensuring quality — all of
that is public administration in action.

Key Definitions by Scholars

Woodrow Wilson (1887) — Often called the 'father' of Public Administration as a discipline. He
said Public Administration is the detailed and systematic application of law. He believed
administration should be separate from politics.

L.D. White (1926) — Defined it as all the operations whose purpose is the fulfillment of public
policy.

Luther Gulick — Described it using the acronym POSDCORB: Planning, Organising, Staffing,
Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting — the core functions of any administrator.

Dwight Waldo (1955) — Defined it as the art and science of management as applied to the
affairs of the state.

Two Main Views on Scope

1. Narrow View (POSDCORB View)

This view says Public Administration is only about the internal workings of government
organisations — managing people, money, and tasks. It focuses on efficiency and techniques
of management. Scholars like Gulick and Urwick supported this view.
2. Broad View (Subject-Matter View)
This view says Public Administration covers everything the government does — education,
health, defence, agriculture, law, etc. It's not just about how things are managed, but what is
being managed. Paul Appleby supported this broader view.

Quick Comparison
Narrow View: Focus on management techniques inside government offices.
Broad View: Focus on all government activities and their impact on society.

Nature of Public Administration

Is it a Science or an Art?
This is a classic debate. As a science, Public Administration uses systematic methods, data,
and principles that can be tested and repeated. As an art, it requires human judgment,
experience, and creativity — especially when dealing with complex social problems. Most
modern scholars agree it is both — a social science that also relies heavily on practical skills.

Is it an independent discipline?
Public Administration draws from Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Management, Law,
and Psychology. For a long time, it was seen as just a branch of Political Science. But today it
is recognised as a separate discipline with its own theories, methods, and concerns.

Relationship with Other Subjects

• Political Science: Provides the political context — who makes decisions and why.
• Economics: Helps understand budgeting, resource allocation, and public finance.
• Sociology: Explains how social groups and communities are affected by administration.
• Law: Gives the legal framework within which administrators must work.
• Management: Provides tools and techniques for organising and running organisations.
• Psychology: Helps understand human behaviour, motivation, and leadership.

Public vs. Private Administration

Public Administration is different from private (business) administration in several key ways:

Aspect Public Administration Private Administration

Goal Serve the public / common good Make profit

Accountability To citizens, parliament, courts To owners/shareholders

Funding Public taxes Private investment

Scale Covers entire country or region Usually limited scope

Flexibility Less flexible (bound by law) More flexible

Transparency Required to be open Not always required

 Chapter 2

Evolution of the Discipline

Overview
Public Administration as a formal field of study is relatively young — about 130 years old. But
administration itself has existed since ancient civilisations. The evolution can be understood
through distinct phases, each shaped by the political and social context of its time.

Phase 1: The Politics-Administration Dichotomy (1887–1926)

Founder: Woodrow Wilson (1887)
• Wilson's famous essay 'The Study of Administration' (1887) is seen as the birth of Public
Administration as a discipline.
• He argued that politics and administration must be kept separate. Politicians make policy;
administrators implement it. This is called the Politics-Administration Dichotomy.
• The goal was to make government more efficient and less corrupt (this was the era of the
'spoils system' in the US, where political party members got government jobs regardless of
merit).
• Frank Goodnow supported this idea in his book Politics and Administration (1900).
• This phase focused on building a professional, neutral civil service.

Phase 2: The Classical/Scientific Management Era (1927–1937)

Key Figures: Luther Gulick, Lyndall Urwick, Frederick Taylor
• This phase borrowed ideas from the business world — especially Frederick Taylor's
Scientific Management — and applied them to government.
• The focus was on finding the 'one best way' to do any task efficiently.
• Luther Gulick gave the famous POSDCORB framework (Planning, Organising, Staffing,
Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, Budgeting).
• Henri Fayol's principles of management (unity of command, scalar chain, division of work)
were also applied.
• This era believed that administration had universal principles that could apply anywhere.

Phase 3: The Challenge to Orthodoxy / Human Relations Era (1938–1950)

Key Figures: Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard, Herbert Simon
• Scholars began to question the idea that there is always 'one best way.' They said human
beings are not machines.
• Elton Mayo's Hawthorne Studies showed that workers' productivity improves when they
feel cared for and socially connected — not just when physical conditions improve.
 • Chester Barnard emphasised informal organisations and cooperation.
• Herbert Simon (1946) famously called earlier principles 'proverbs' — contradictory and
unscientific. He introduced the concept of 'bounded rationality' — that human
decision-making is always limited.
• This phase raised serious doubts about whether Public Administration could ever be a
pure science.

Phase 4: The Behavioural Era (1950s–1960s)

Key Figures: Herbert Simon, Robert Dahl, Dwight Waldo
• Influenced by behavioural science, scholars focused on actual human behaviour in
organisations rather than ideal rules.
• Robert Dahl (1947) argued that Public Administration could not be a science unless it
dealt with human values and cross-cultural differences.
• Dwight Waldo wrote 'The Administrative State' (1948) — a major critique of the narrow
efficiency-focused view, arguing administration is deeply political.
• There was growing acceptance that values, ethics, and politics could not be separated
from administration.

Phase 5: New Public Administration (1970s)

Key Event: Minnowbrook Conference (1968)
• Young scholars met at Minnowbrook (organised by Dwight Waldo) and declared that
Public Administration must be relevant to social problems.
• They called for social equity — that government must actively work to reduce inequality,
poverty, and discrimination.
• The traditional focus on efficiency and neutrality was challenged. They argued that being
'neutral' in an unequal society actually helps maintain injustice.
• Key scholars: Frank Marini, H. George Frederickson.
• This phase gave birth to a more value-driven, activist view of public administration.

Phase 6: New Public Management and Beyond (1980s–present)

See Chapter 3 for full detail
• From the 1980s onward, governments began adopting business-style management in the
public sector.
• Ideas like privatisation, competition, performance measurement, and customer service
became central.
• This is called New Public Management (NPM) — covered in detail in the next chapter.
• Later responses to NPM led to the New Public Service, Good Governance, and Digital
Governance approaches.
 Chapter 3

New Public Management (NPM)

What is New Public Management?

New Public Management (NPM) is a reform movement that began in the 1980s in countries like
the UK, USA, Australia, and New Zealand. The basic idea was: 'Run the government like a
business.' It brought private sector management tools and values into the public sector.

The term was coined by Christopher Hood in 1991. It emerged as a response to the perceived
failures of the traditional bureaucratic model — too slow, too rigid, too expensive, and
unresponsive to citizens' needs.

Why did NPM emerge?

In the 1970s and 1980s, many Western governments faced economic crises, rising public
debt, and public distrust in government. Traditional bureaucracy was seen as wasteful and
inefficient. Politicians like Margaret Thatcher (UK) and Ronald Reagan (USA) pushed for
smaller government, privatisation, and market-based solutions.

Core Features of NPM

• Performance Management: Set clear targets and measure results. Agencies are judged
by outcomes, not just processes.
• Decentralisation: Break large bureaucracies into smaller, independent agencies. Give
managers more freedom.
• Privatisation & Contracting Out: Hand over some government services to private
companies. For example, private firms running public transport or hospitals.
• Market Mechanisms: Introduce competition even within government — agencies
compete for funding or clients.
• Customer Orientation: Treat citizens as 'customers' — focus on their satisfaction and
choice.
• Results-Based Accountability: Managers are held accountable for achieving results, not
just following rules.
• Cost-Cutting & Efficiency: Reduce waste, cut unnecessary staff, and do more with less.
• Managerialism: Professional managers (not career civil servants) run public
organisations.

Theorists and Models Behind NPM

Public Choice Theory — Developed by economists like James Buchanan. It argues that
government officials, like everyone else, act in their own self-interest. So the solution is to
reduce government size and use market competition.

Principal-Agent Theory — Focuses on how to ensure that agents (government managers) act
in the interests of their principals (citizens or political leaders). NPM uses contracts and
performance targets to solve this problem.

Transaction Cost Economics — Asks: what is the most cost-effective way to deliver a service
— directly by government, or by contracting it out? NPM often opts for contracting out.

Examples of NPM in Practice

• UK: Thatcher's government privatised British Telecom, British Airways, and utilities in the
1980s.
• New Zealand: Introduced performance contracts for government managers and
restructured entire ministries.
• India: Liberalisation (1991) opened government monopolies to private competition.
• Many countries: Created autonomous regulatory agencies and public-private partnerships
(PPPs).

Criticisms of NPM
• It treats citizens as mere 'customers' — ignoring their role as democratic citizens with
rights.
• Profit motive in public services can lead to neglect of the poor and marginalised.
• Short-term performance targets can undermine long-term public good.
• Fragmentation of services makes coordination difficult.
• Accountability becomes unclear when private firms run public services.
• It undermines the values of equity, justice, and public interest.
• Not all public services can or should be run like businesses (e.g., policing, courts, disaster
management).
 Chapter 4

Comparative Public Administration

What is Comparative Public Administration?

Comparative Public Administration (CPA) is the study of how administrative systems work in
different countries and cultures, and what we can learn by comparing them. Instead of studying
one country's system in isolation, CPA asks: How do different governments organise
themselves? Why do some administrative systems work better than others? What can we learn
from other countries?

The formal development of CPA began after World War II, especially in the 1950s–1960s,
when the USA was interested in helping newly independent countries build their governments.

Key Founders and Scholars

• Fred Riggs: The most important figure in CPA. He developed the 'Ecological Approach'
— the idea that administrative systems cannot be understood without looking at the social,
cultural, economic, and political environment they exist in. He also created the famous
Prismatic-Sala Model.
• Ferrel Heady: Wrote 'Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective' — one of the
most comprehensive comparative studies.
• Robert Dahl: Argued early on that administration is deeply tied to culture and society,
making universal principles impossible.
• Gabriel Almond & James Coleman: Used structural-functional analysis to compare
political and administrative systems.

Fred Riggs' Ecological Approach

Fred Riggs argued that you cannot copy an administrative model from one country and paste it
into another — because administration is deeply shaped by its environment (ecology). This
environment includes culture, history, religion, economy, and politics.

The Agraria-Industria Model

Riggs first proposed a simple two-type model:

• Agraria — Traditional, agricultural societies with undifferentiated structures.

• Industria — Modern, industrial societies with highly specialised structures.
But this was too simple. Most developing countries were in between — neither fully traditional
nor fully modern. So Riggs developed the Prismatic Model.

The Prismatic-Sala Model (Most Important)

Riggs used the metaphor of light passing through a prism to explain transitional societies:

• Fused Society: Like white light before entering the prism. All social functions (religious,
political, economic) are merged together. Example: ancient kingdoms where the king was
also the religious and economic ruler.
• Prismatic Society: Like light inside the prism — being differentiated but not yet fully
separated. This represents transitional or developing countries that have modern
institutions on paper but are heavily influenced by traditional values in practice.
• Diffracted Society: Like light after leaving the prism, fully separated into distinct colours.
Modern, developed societies where political, economic, and administrative functions are
clearly separated.

The Sala Model

The administrative office in a prismatic society is called the 'Sala' (Riggs used a
Spanish/Filipino word meaning both a government office and a drawing room — symbolising
how formal and informal roles overlap). In the Sala, an official may take formal decisions but
also be guided by family loyalty, caste, or bribes. This captures the reality of administration in
many developing countries.

Features of Prismatic Society

• Heterogeneity: Modern and traditional practices exist side by side. A government may
use computers in the office but decisions may still be influenced by caste or tribe.
• Formalism: A large gap between what the rules say (formal) and what actually happens
(informal). Laws exist on paper but may not be implemented.
• Overlapping: Social, political, economic, and administrative roles overlap. A
businessman may also be a politician and a religious leader.
• Poly-Communalism: Society is divided into many communities (caste, religion, ethnicity)
that compete for power and resources.
• Bazaar-Canteen Economy: A mix of market economy and traditional exchange — prices
may depend on who you are, not just supply and demand.
• Clect: A mixture of a clan (kinship group) and a clique (interest group). Officials may
favour people from their own community.

Why is CPA Important?

• Prevents blind copying of western models into developing countries.
• Helps countries learn from each other's successes and failures.
• Provides a realistic understanding of how administration really works in different contexts.
• Guides development assistance and administrative reform programmes.
 Chapter 5

Good Governance, Digital Governance &

Corporate Governance

Part A: Good Governance

Governance is a broader concept than government. While government refers to the formal
institutions of the state, governance refers to all the processes, relationships, and mechanisms
through which society is directed — including government, private sector, and civil society.
Good Governance means governance that is effective, transparent, accountable, inclusive,
and just.

The concept became popular in the 1990s when international organisations like the World
Bank and UNDP made 'good governance' a condition for development aid.

8 Principles of Good Governance (UNDP/World Bank)

• Participation: All citizens — especially marginalised groups — should have a voice in
decisions that affect them.
• Rule of Law: Laws must be fair, clearly understood, and enforced equally for everyone.
No one is above the law.
• Transparency: Decisions and processes should be open and accessible to the public.
• Responsiveness: Government institutions should respond quickly and appropriately to
citizens' needs.
• Consensus-Oriented: Governance should mediate between different interests to reach
broad agreement for the common good.
• Equity and Inclusiveness: All groups in society must feel included and not left behind.
• Effectiveness and Efficiency: Institutions should produce results that meet the needs of
society while making the best use of resources.
• Accountability: Government officials must be answerable to the public, and civil society
must be answerable to its stakeholders.

Good Governance vs. Old Governance

Old approach: Government decides everything, top-down, citizens just obey.
Good Governance approach: Government, civil society, and private sector work together,
citizens participate, and leaders are held accountable.

Part B: Digital Governance (E-Governance)

Digital Governance (also called E-Governance or E-Government) means using information and
communication technology (ICT) — the internet, computers, mobile phones, and data systems
— to deliver government services and manage public affairs more efficiently and transparently.

Key Forms of Digital Governance

• G2C (Government to Citizens): Government delivering services directly to people online
— like filing taxes online, renewing licenses, or getting birth certificates.
• G2B (Government to Business): Online registration of businesses, filing of returns,
applying for permits.
• G2G (Government to Government): Different government departments sharing
information and coordinating through digital systems.
• G2E (Government to Employees): Managing government staff — payroll, attendance,
training — through digital platforms.

Benefits of Digital Governance

• Reduces corruption by removing middlemen and making transactions transparent.
• Saves time and cost for both citizens and government.
• Makes services available 24/7 from anywhere.
• Improves data collection and decision-making.
• Increases public trust through transparency.

Challenges
• Digital divide — not everyone has access to internet or devices.
• Cybersecurity threats — government data can be hacked.
• Privacy concerns — collection of personal data.
• Resistance from government employees who fear job losses.
• High cost of infrastructure in developing countries.

Indian Example: Digital India

India's Digital India initiative (2015) aimed to connect rural areas with high-speed internet,
digitise government services (like Aadhaar-linked benefits), and create a knowledge economy.
Schemes like DigiLocker, UMANG app, and CoWIN (COVID vaccination portal) are examples.

Part C: Corporate Governance

Corporate Governance refers to the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a
company (or public organisation) is directed and controlled. It defines who has power, who
makes decisions, and who is accountable.

In the public sector context, Corporate Governance became important as governments started
running public enterprises and needed to ensure they were managed well — not just for profit
but also for public benefit.
Key Principles of Corporate Governance
• Accountability: Boards and managers must answer to shareholders or the public for their
decisions.
• Transparency: Financial reports and major decisions must be openly disclosed.
• Fairness: All stakeholders (employees, investors, public) must be treated equitably.
• Responsibility: Organisations must comply with laws and act ethically.
• Independence: Boards should have independent directors who are not influenced by
management.
Important corporate governance scandals like Enron (USA) and Satyam (India) showed what
happens when governance fails — massive fraud, job losses, and collapse of public trust.
These scandals led to stronger regulations like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (USA) and the
Companies Act 2013 (India).
 Chapter 6

New Public Service Approach

Background: A Response to NPM

By the late 1990s and early 2000s, many scholars and practitioners felt that New Public
Management had gone too far. Running government like a business was causing problems:
services were becoming inequitable, public values were being eroded, and citizens were being
treated as passive consumers rather than active democratic participants.

In response, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed the New Public Service (NPS) approach
in their 2003 book The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Their argument was simple:
public administration should be about serving citizens and upholding democratic values — not
running government like a business.

Core Principles of New Public Service

1. Serve Citizens, Not Customers

Citizens are not just customers buying a service. They are owners of the democratic system.
Government must respond to their rights and needs, not just their market preferences.

2. Seek the Public Interest

Administrators must work toward the common good, not just efficient outputs. The goal is to
build shared values and a sense of community, not just satisfy individual consumers.

3. Value Citizenship Over Entrepreneurship

In NPS, the most important quality in a public servant is commitment to citizenship and public
service — not entrepreneurial skill. An entrepreneur takes risks for profit; a public servant is
responsible to the community.

4. Think Strategically, Act Democratically

Policies should be developed through open, participatory processes. Citizens, interest groups,
and community organisations should all have a say — not just top officials.

5. Recognize that Accountability is Not Simple

Public servants must be accountable not just to their bosses or the market — but to the public,
the constitution, community values, political norms, and professional standards. This is a
complex, multi-layered accountability.

6. Serve Rather Than Steer

The role of a public administrator is to help citizens achieve their shared goals, not to steer
society in a direction chosen by managers or politicians alone. The focus is on enabling
participation and collaboration.
7. Value People, Not Just Productivity
Public organisations and their leaders must value their employees, treat them with respect, and
foster a collaborative culture — not just demand productivity and results.

NPS vs NPM: Quick Summary

NPM says: Government should be like a business — efficient, competitive, result-oriented.
NPS says: Government should be like a community servant — democratic, collaborative,
value-driven.
NPM treats citizens as customers. NPS treats citizens as active participants in democracy.
NPM focuses on efficiency. NPS focuses on equity, justice, and shared values.

Theoretical Foundations of NPS

The New Public Service approach draws on several theoretical traditions:

• Democratic Citizenship Theory: Citizens are not passive; they are active, engaged
participants in governance. Drawing on scholars like Benjamin Barber.
• Community and Civil Society Models: Strong communities and non-governmental
organisations are essential to democratic governance.
• Organisational Humanism: Organisations should be designed to meet human needs
and support individual dignity. Drawing on Abraham Maslow and Chris Argyris.
• Discourse Theory / Postmodern Public Administration: Truth and public interest are
not discovered by experts alone — they emerge from open public dialogue and debate.

Criticisms of NPS
• It can be idealistic — in practice, public participation is often limited by time, resources,
and apathy.
• It does not provide clear operational tools the way NPM does.
• Defining 'public interest' is difficult — different groups have different interests.
• It may undervalue efficiency and effectiveness in favour of process.
 Chapter 7

Feminist Perspective in Public

Administration

Introduction: Why Feminism in Public Administration?

For most of its history, Public Administration was dominated by men — in practice and in
theory. The bureaucratic model, scientific management, NPM — all these frameworks were
built on assumptions rooted in a male-dominated world: hierarchy, competition, rationality,
efficiency, control. Feminist scholars argued that this created a serious blind spot.

The Feminist Perspective in Public Administration emerged from the broader feminist
movement and asks two fundamental questions: (1) Where are the women? (representation
and access) and (2) What difference does it make? (how gender shapes policies,
organisations, and values).

Key Waves of Feminist Thought

First Wave (late 1800s – early 1900s)

Focused on formal legal equality — women's right to vote, to own property, to work. In public
administration terms: getting women into government jobs.

Second Wave (1960s–1980s)

Went beyond formal equality. Argued that even when women enter government, they face
discrimination, glass ceilings, sexual harassment, and unequal pay. Called for structural
changes in organisations and policies (e.g., affirmative action).

Third Wave (1990s–2000s)

Rejected the idea of a single 'women's experience.' Recognised that gender intersects with
race, class, sexuality, disability, and religion. Called for intersectionality in analysis (concept
developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw).

Fourth Wave (2010s–present)

Uses digital platforms and social media for activism (#MeToo, #TimesUp). Focuses on sexual
harassment, gender-based violence, and corporate accountability.

Key Feminist Critiques of Traditional Public Administration

• Bureaucracy is Gendered: Traditional bureaucracy emphasises hierarchy, control, and
impersonal rules — values associated with masculinity. Feminist scholars like Kathy
Ferguson argue this structure is inherently oppressive to women (and others).
 • False Dichotomies: The traditional separation of 'public' (government, work, politics)
from 'private' (home, family, care) has been used to exclude women. Women's work in the
private sphere was seen as separate from public life — but feminists argue these are
deeply connected.
• Underrepresentation: Women are underrepresented at top levels of government and
public administration worldwide. This is not natural — it is the result of structural barriers.
• Policy Bias: Policies designed without women's perspectives often fail women or actively
harm them — e.g., welfare policies that penalise single mothers, or health policies that
ignore women's specific needs.
• Male Norms in Organisations: The ideal public servant has historically been imagined
as someone who can work long hours without family responsibilities — which is a male
norm. This disadvantages women who are primary caregivers.

Feminist Approaches and Alternatives

1. Liberal Feminism
Argues for equal rights and equal opportunities within the existing system. Advocates for: more
women in government, equal pay laws, anti-discrimination legislation, and maternity benefits.
Does not fundamentally challenge the structure of bureaucracy.

2. Radical Feminism
Argues that the system itself is built on patriarchal (male-dominated) values and must be
fundamentally restructured. Bureaucracy, hierarchy, and competition must be replaced with
more collaborative, participatory, and caring structures.

3. Socialist Feminism
Connects gender inequality with class inequality. Argues that women's subordination is linked
to capitalism and economic exploitation. Public administration must address both gender and
economic inequality.

4. Postmodern/Intersectional Feminism
Rejects universal categories like 'woman.' Gender intersects with race, class, sexuality, and
other identities. Public administration must be sensitive to multiple, overlapping forms of
discrimination. Kimberlé Crenshaw's concept of intersectionality is key here.

Gender Mainstreaming
Gender mainstreaming is the practical tool through which feminist principles are applied in
public administration. Defined by the UN as the process of assessing the implications for
women and men of any planned action — not just in women-specific programmes, but in all
policies, legislation, and programmes.

In simple terms: before any policy is designed, ask — how will this affect women differently
from men? How will it affect different groups of women (poor women, tribal women, disabled
women, etc.)?
 • Collect sex-disaggregated data (data that shows outcomes separately for men and
women).
• Include women in policy design and decision-making processes.
• Conduct gender impact assessments of policies.
• Set targets for women's representation in public institutions.
• Create budget allocations for gender equality (gender-responsive budgeting).

Indian Context: Feminist Public Administration

India's 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992) reserved 33% of seats in local
government (Panchayats and municipalities) for women — a major step toward feminist public
administration. Studies show that where women are elected, priorities like water, sanitation,
schools, and healthcare receive more attention.
The National Commission for Women (NCW) and schemes like Beti Bachao Beti Padhao and
Ujjwala Yojana reflect efforts to integrate gender into public policy.

Key Feminist Scholars in Public Administration

• Camilla Stivers: Argued that the ideal of the 'neutral expert' administrator is gendered.
Wrote 'Gender Images in Public Administration.'
• Kathy Ferguson: Wrote 'The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy' — argued that
bureaucracy is structured to serve male interests and must be dismantled.
• Mary Guy & Meredith Newman: Focused on emotional labour in public administration —
the hidden work of managing emotions that falls disproportionately on women.
• Kimberlé Crenshaw: Developed intersectionality — the idea that multiple identities (race,
gender, class) overlap and create compounded forms of discrimination.
• Joan Acker: Developed the concept of 'gendered organisations' — showing how
organisations are structured around masculine norms.

Summary: All Approaches at a Glance

Approach Core Idea Key Focus

Traditional PA Efficiency + neutral bureaucracy Rules, hierarchy,

POSDCORB

New PA (1970s) Social equity + relevance Justice, anti-poverty

New Public Mgmt Run govt like business Efficiency, markets,

results
Comparative PA Context matters Culture, ecology,
cross-national

Good Governance Multi-actor, accountable Transparency,

participation

Digital Governance Technology for service E-services, data, ICT

Corporate Governance Accountability of organisations Boards, ethics, disclosure

New Public Service Serve citizens, not steer Democracy, values,

community

Feminist Perspective Gender equity in PA Representation,

intersectionality

These notes cover the complete syllabus on Public Administration: Nature, Scope and
Approaches — written in plain language for easy understanding without losing any academic
depth.