LESSON II

EVOLUTION OF THE STUDY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND

NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Objectives
The objectives of the lesson are to understand the details relating to:
1. The evolution of the Public Administration during I period between
1887 and 1926;
2. The evolution of the Public Administration during II period
between 1927 and 1937;
3. The evolution of the Public Administration during III period
between 1938 and 1947;
4. The evolution of the Public Administration during IV period
between 1948 and 1970;
5. The evolution of the Public Administration during V period 1971
onwards; and
6. The understand the evolution of New Public Administration

Structure of the Lesson

2.1. The evolution of the Public Administration during I period between 1887
and 1926
2.2. The evolution of the Public Administration during II period between
1927 and 1937
2.3. The evolution of the Public Administration during III period between
1938 and 1947
2.3.1 Herbert A. Simon
2.3.2 Elton Mayo
2.4 The evolution of the Public Administration during IV period between
1948 and 1970
2.5. The evolution of the Public Administration during V period 1971
onwards
2.6 New Public Administration
2.6.1. The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service
(1967)
2.6.2. Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration
(1967)
2.6.3. The Minnow brook Conference (1968)
2.7. Conclusion

25
2.8. Model Questions
2.9. Answers for the Questions

Introduction
The evolution of the study of Public Administration is studied
by the scholars of Public Administration under five periods. They are:
I. Period between 1887 and 1926
II. Period between 1927 and 1937
III. Period between 1938 and 1947
IV. Period between 1948 and 1970
V. Period 1971 onwards.
In this lesson an attempt has been made to study the evolution
of the study of Public Administration in the different periods.
2.1. The Evolution of the Public Administration during I period between
1887 and 1926
The first period is said to be the era of Politics Administration
dichotomy. Public Administration as a discipline is said to be originated in
America. It enriches the discipline even today. In the year 1887, Woodrow
Wilson, a Professor of Political Science who later became the President of
America wrote an essay titled, “The Study of Administration”. Wilson's article
examines the history and subject matter of the study of public
administration and argues for a particular understanding of administrative
government and particular methods for implementing it. This article paved
the way for the development of the discipline called Public Administration.
Therefore, Woodrow Wilson is called the father of Public Administration. In
this essay, he has pointed out that Politics is concerned with making of
policies and Administration is concerned with implementation of polices.
Politics is the special province of statement and Public Administration is the
special province of Government officials. Therefore, Woodrow Wilson said
that Public Administration should be studied as an independent discipline.
Wilson stated four reasons why there should be a science of administration:
(1) straighten the paths of government; (2) make its business businesslike;
(3) strengthen its organization; and (4) crown its dutifulness. Wilson knew
that it is not possible to achieve absolute separation of politics and
administration as what he really wants was to keep public administration
out of the ills of politics and institutionalize the practice of effective
administration. Thus Woodrow Wilson was responsible for the development

26
of the discipline called Public Administration. But he did not elaborate the
areas which should form the study of Public Administration, This gap was
filled up by Goodnow. He wrote a book titled “Politics and Administration”,
he is stated that while politics has something to do with policies or
expressions of the State’s will, administration has to do with the execution of
such policies. Wilson and Goodnow made clear that politics is limited to
crafting of policies and lawmaking, a function generally vested upon a State’s
legislative body; and administration is focused on the implementation of
laws, a function normally held by the State’s executive branch.
Although these definitions are valid, it would be somewhat
problematic if we were to use this in our present (or any future) analysis. To
illustrate, the legislative veto and oversight function of the Philippine
Congress can be viewed as a manifestation of how it can act like and share
the authority of administration with the executive branch. Also, the exclusive
power of the President of the Philippines to introduce the budget proposal to
the Congress shows how the President can play a preeminent role in policy
agenda. Other than the overlapping (if not harmony) of functions of politics
and administration, the problem which now remains is the obsolescence of
this longstanding differentiation of these fields.
If we were to view politics as a field which concerns the
allocation of public resources, a cursory definition which I believe is being
employed by the scholars of our time, it would be resonant of what public
administration essentially means.
If truth be told, the difference between politics and
administration is really hard to tell as the former heavily influences the
latter, or vice versa. Nevertheless the discussion has gone a long way. While
some scholars posit that Wilson called for a complete separation of politics
and administration, Wilson himself admitted that the dichotomy of the two is
fictional. So if it is implausible in the first place, why call for dichotomy?
This is now the part where we shall answer our first question we asked in
introduction. He has explained in his book the areas which form the study of
Public Administration.
In 1926 L.D. White wrote a textbook on Public Administration.
The title of the book was “Introduction to the study of Public
Administration”. L.D. White is one of the major theorists and practitioners in
public administration and is generally ignored. White taught, researched,

27
studied and discovered theoretical concepts and practical methods that are
still useful today. Examines the major themes found in White’s writings by
chronologically progressing through his works and the major activities of his
life. Brings to the forefront a portion of public administrations’ neglected
intellectual heritage and makes it useful for the present. Thus even today
this book is considered as a classic in Public Administration. The main
theme for the three works in the first period was Politics Administration
dichotomy.

2.2. The Evolution of the Public Administration during II Period

between 1927 and 1937
The second period in the evolution of the study of Public
Administration is said to be the golden period in the development of the
study of Public Administration. A large number of books on Public
Administration were written during this period by a number of scholars of
Public Administration. “Principles of Organization” by Mooney and Reiley,
“The Theory of Management” by Mary Parker Follet, Henry Fayol’s, “Papers
on the Science of Administration” by Gullick and Urwick are some the
important works appeared during this period.
James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, in their pioneering work,
“The principles of organization,” 1939, illustrated the close relationship
between management and bureaucracy by noting that organization ion the
formal sense means order, the organized and orderly procedures. Both
approaches emphasize objectivity rationality, certainty, hierarchy and
professionalism. The administrative theory also shares the same weaknesses
of the theory of bureaucracy as regards rigidity, impersonality, displacement
of objectives limitation of departmental categorization, self-perpetuation and
empire building the cost of controls and anxiety. Unlike the theory of
bureaucracy, which was developed by sociologist, who studied government
institutions the administrative theory, was developed by practising
managers. Their objective was to develop a theory incorporating principles
and other concepts for achieving formal organization. It is sometimes said
that the bureaucratic theorists suggested what a formal organization should
be and the administrative theorists suggested the means of achieving it.
While the bureaucrats emphasize the organization structure the

28
administrative theorists emphasize management, which is a component of
organization.
Mary Parker Follett, Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol in their
work titled “The Theory of Management”, have pointed out that management
is a skill where tasks are accomplished through a process in order to achieve
certain goals of the organisation. There are many definitions of management
explained by different people and numerous philosophers. The evolution -the
change of management study consists a period in the 20th century where
scientific approach, classical/administrative approach and human relations
of management were the major changes and had huge impact on the
management environment. In the evolution of management there are
appearance of many names but this paper only focuses on three
philosophers named Mary Parker Follett, Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol. It
looks at their work and contributions in management and what is their best
approaches. These three individuals introduced many great different ideas
and techniques to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and to change the
concept of working in the workplace. This paper examines the work,
statement of Follett regarding the hierarchy of position in contrast to
authority and it leads on to compare it with Taylor and Fayols viewpoints.
Papers on the Science of Administration by Luther Gulick and
L. Urwick, have brought together in this collection are essays by men
scientifically interested in the phenomena of administration. Most of these
writers did their thinking independently, in some cases without any
acquaintance with the others, or with their writings. The striking similarity
and harmony of the analyses, nomenclature, and hypotheses, frequently set
forth as principles, is thus doubly significant. Few of these papers have been
published or publicly circulated in such a way as to make them accessible to
practical administrators, scholars, or students. The immediate occasion for
this publication is the fact that no copies of the essential papers in this
collection could be found in any library in Washington at the time when the
President's Committee on Administrative Management required these
documents for the use of members of its research staff. In considering the
proper content of this volume and in securing the permission of the authors,
or of their executors and heirs, for publication, it was only natural to draw
into the enterprise as associate editor L. Urwick. His contributions speak for
themselves. It is the hope of the editors that the availability of these papers

29
will advance the analysis of administration, assist in the development of a
standard nomenclature, encourage others to criticize the hypotheses with
regard to administration herein set forth and to advance their own concepts
fearlessly, and to point the way to areas greatly in need of exploration. If
those who are concerned scientifically with the phenomena of getting things
done through co-operative human endeavor will proceed along these lines,
we may expect in time to construct a valid and accepted theory of
administration. This collection does not include anything from the writings
of F. A. Cleveland, Charles A. Beard, and A. E. Buck, whose works are well
known, unless it is in my own papers which grow directly from long years of
association with them; nor from W. F. Willoughby, Leonard D. White,
Marshall Dimock or John Gaus, all of whom have recently published books
or essays dealing with administration, in a form easily accessible to all.
We are indebted to the authors, and to their heirs and agents,
for permitting this publication of their pioneer works without expectation of
royalty or reward, and to Miss Sarah Greer for the excellent translation of
Henri Fayol's paper, The Administrative Theory in the State, which has not
heretofore appeared in English. Administrators, scholars and students of the
logic of administration who find this collection of value, must render their
chief thanks to Miss Greer, who from her vantage point as librarian of the
Institute of Public Administration, insisted that this collection was
necessary, and who put back of the project that tireless pressure and
devotion which is necessary to the accomplishment of any worthwhile
purpose.
Thus, these scholars are of the opinion that certain principles
of Public Administration can be developed and by applying these principles
in the Governmental organizations, more efficiency and productivity can be
achieved. During this period, the discipline of Public Administration
commanded a high degree of respectability.

2.3. The Evolution of the Public Administration during III period

between 1938 and 1947
This period is said to e the crises of identify for the discipline of
Public Administration. In the first period, the base for the development of the
study of Public Administration was Politics Administration dichotomy. This
dichotomy was challenged by Paul H. Appleby. He said that Politics and

30
Administration couldn’t be separated because though policies authorities
make policies, they can not make the policies without the help of
administrate authorities. Therefore, administrative authorities that are in
evolved in the implementation of policies also involve in making of policies.
Thus Politics can not be separated from Administration.
The second base for the development of the discipline called
Public Administration is that, certain principles of Public Administration can
be evolved, and by careful application of these principles in Governmental
originations, more efficiency and productively could be brought about.
In the second period a number of scholars of Public
Administration who are called classical thinkers developed a number of
principles of Public Administration. Herbert. A. Simon challenged the validity
of the principles developed by the classical thinkers. He said that the
Principles developed by the classical thinkers are just proverbs. These
principles are not based on empirical test. Therefore by applying these
principles, Simon said more efficiency and productively can not be brought
about in the Governmental Organization. Elton Mayo, through the various
experiments he conducted, in the Hawthorne Western Electric Company
proved that efficiency and productivity in an organization depended in not
applying the principles of Public Administration but by developing better
human relations between the individuals working in the organization. Thus,
the two bases on which Public Administration grew as a discipline in the two
periods, were challenged in the third period and there by there was a crisis
of identify for the discipline Public Administration.

2.3.1 Herbert A. Simon

Herbert [Link]’s principal publications are Administrative
Behaviour (1947); Fundamental Research in Administration (1953);
Organization (1958); The New Science of Management Decision (1960);
Shape of Automation (1960); Science of the Artificial (1969) and Human
Problem Solving (1972). In recognition of his outstanding contribution in
analyzing the decision – making process, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in
1978. He was a visiting Professor in several universities. He is one of the
outstanding pioneers in psychological research.
Simon attacked the principles of administration developed by
classical theorists on the ground that there was a wide gap between these

31
prescribed principles and their effective practice. He rejected them as mere
proverbs. According to the classical theorists, efficiency is supposed to
increase with an increase in specialization. But Simon pointed out that
specialization is not a condition of efficient administration. Specialization
means different people doing different things. The real problem of
administration is not specialization, but specializing in a particular manner
and direction that may lead to administrative efficiency. Simon is of the view
that administrative efficiency can only be increased by a specialization of the
task among the group in the direction that will lead to greater efficiency.
The second principle attacked by Simon is the principle of
unity of command. According to him, the main limitation of this principle is
that it is against the principle of specialization. Under the principle of
specialization subordinates have to accept orders not only from their
superiors but also from all kinds of specialists. In such a situation unity of
command does not exist.
The third principle attacked by Simon is the principle of span
of control. His observation is that limiting the number of subordinates
reporting directly to one superior can in a large organization, cause
excessive red tape.
The bases of organization, namely, purpose, process, place and
people were also not acceptable to Simon. He observed that it is not
consistent with the principle of specialization. Further, the difference
between one basis and another is negligible or the terms are confusing with
each other. A purpose is achieved through a process. If it is so, there cannot
be much difference between the two terms. His observation is that one
cannot be scarified for the other.
Simon observes that decision - making is the core of
administration as it is made at all levels of the organization. The task of
decision – making pervades the entire administrative organization. Rational
decision – making process is the ideal one. But many non – rational factors
are found in the organization. Therefore, all efforts are to be directed
towards maximizing rationality in decision - making. Decision – making
involves the execution of decisions in which even a person working at the
lowest levels of hierarchy has an essential role to play in the
accomplishment of the organization’s objectives.

32
 Any rational decision is a conclusion reached from certain
premises. These premises are values and facts. If these values and facts are
specified, the behaviour of the persons who take decision on the basis of
these value and facts can be controlled. If the value premises and facts
premises are clearly specified the control that is exercised over the decision –
maker will be complete. If the premises are left to the discretion of the
decision – maker without clear specifications then, the control exercised over
him will be only partial.
Simon makes a difference between permitting a discretion
based on value premises and a discretion based on factual premises. The
discretion permitted on factual premises can be evaluated as correct or
incorrect. But the discretion permitted on the basis of value premises cannot
be evaluated as correct or incorrect in empirical sense. It is mainly because
there is no universally accepted criterion to judge the discretion on the value
premises as correct or incorrect.
Since factual and value considerations are present in decision –
making, it is not possible to evaluate the decision of an administrator
scientifically. The process of decision – making can be sub divided into two
phases. They are developing a system of values and appraising their relative
merits and demerits; and making a comparison of the possible lines of
actions in terms of the values system.
The first phase involves both ethical and factual considerations
but the second phase involves only factual considerations. The distinction
between value premises and factual premises has a bearing on the
distinction between policy and administration. Simon is for separating the
former from the latter observes that a science of administration can only be
based on facts.
Simon is interested in analyzing how decisions are made more
effective. He identifies three stages in the scientific process of decision –
making. These three stages are the intelligence activity, the design activity
and the choice activity. The intelligence activity refers to identifying
occasions calling for a decision. For identifying the occasions that require
decisions one will have to survey the economic, social, political and technical
environment. Adequate data will be required for this purpose. The design
activity refers to selecting a particular course of action from among the
several available courses of action and the choice activity refers to selecting

33
a particular course of action from among the several available courses of
action.
Not only these three stages are involved in decision – making.
According to Simon, the execution of decision is also a part of the decision –
making process. It is because the one who executes the decision faces a new
set of problems in carrying out a particular decision.
Simon holds the view that a decision maker should design the
environment in such a way that individual will approach rationality as close
as practicable in his decisions. Because there are several non – rational
factors influencing decision – making in every organization. The non –
rational, emotional and unconscious elements in man’s thinking and
behaviour affect the objectivity dimension of a decision. As a result it is not
possible to evaluate all alternatives in an objective manner. Therefore,
decision – making ought to look for course of action that is satisfactory or
“good enough”.
Simon makes a distinction between programmed decisions and
non – programmed decisions. Programmed decisions are repetitive, routine
and a definite procedure has been evolved to deal with them. Non –
programmed decisions are those which are novel and unstructured. There
exist no known methods of handling them in an optimum manner. This may
be because a similar case has not occurred before, because it may be
particularly difficult case. Simon is interested in using computer
programmes for non - programmed problem solving. He says that the same
process can be applied to the sphere of administrative decision –making.
Simon says that the decision – making criterion must be
efficiency. His criterion of efficiency refers to the choice of alternative which
produces the largest results for the given applications of resources. The use
of his efficiency criterion is limited by two conditions in public
administration. The first condition is that the human and the material
resources that an administrator proposes to employ must be scarce, i.e., the
resources available for one programme will not be available for another. This
is known as opportunity cost. The second condition is that the administrator
should be neutral in the use of resources so long as he achieves greatest
result, but any bias to - wards certain ways of doing things as contrasted to
others will interfere with the efficiency criterion. He contends that his
efficiency criterion is applicable largely to low level decisions.

34
 Simon in his decision making analysis makes a distinction
between the decision to participate and the decision to produce. In deciding
to participate, a participant is guided by personal considerations and once
his decision is made, personal goals become subordinate to the goals of the
organization. High morale develops whenever influence creates such an
atmosphere in which employees are willing to participate in truly active way
and are ready to devote their full energies to the tasks of the organization.
Simon also makes a distinction between internal and external
influences on a decision maker. Internal influence identifies the individual
with the organization. It refers to the employee’s attitude, habits, his
personal background, which lead him to reach the desired decisions. The
external influences refer to authority, communication, training and advice.
Simon’s ultimate desire is that rationality should be achieved
in decision – making so that decisions made in public administration will be
objective and efficient.
Simon’s critics contend that although the decision – making
process is an important variable in the organizational situation, it alone is
not adequate to explain the totality of the organizational picture. To them,
decision – making is a process involving the emotional or expressive as well
as rational or instrumental dimensions. Critics equate Simon’s concept of
efficiency with economy and contend that it leads to a mechanical aspect of
administration and to an inconsistent relationship between means and
ends. They say that efficiency cannot be the only goal of administration. In
spite of the criticisms leveled against Simon’s theory, his contribution is
undoubtedly a major breakthrough in the evolution of administrative theory.
It is no exaggeration to say that his stress on the use of behavioural
approach with particular emphasis on the decision – making scheme has
paved the way for a new learning process in public Administration.
Simon rejects the principles of administration developed by
classical theorists on the ground that there was a wide gap between these
prescribed principles and their effective practice. For Simon decision -
making is the core of administration. Since non-rational factors are also
involved in the organization, all efforts, are to be directed towards
maximizing rationality in decision-making. His ultimate intention is that
rationality should be achieved in decision - making so that decisions made
in public administration will be objective and efficient. Simon's decision -

35
making framework is criticized that it lacks substance since the emotional
or expressive dimensions are not included/considered. Nevertheless,
Simon's contribution is considered as a major breakthrough in
administrative theory.

2.3.2. Elton Mayo

In 1924, Mayo along with a few other professors of Harvard Business

School, U.S.A. conducted a series of experiments at the Hawthorne plant of
Western Electric Company, Chicago which was engaged in producing bells
and other electrical equipments for the telephone industry. The experiments
conducted by them are classified into three parts. They are illumination
Experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932; Relay Assembly Test Room
Experiments conducted between 1927 and 1932; and Bank Wiring
Observation Room Experiments conducted between 1931 and 1932.
The illumination experiments begin in November 1924, to
study the relationship between quality and quantity of illumination and
efficiency in industry. This experiment was started on the original
hypothesis of scientific management that there was a correlation between
the intensity of illumination and workers’ output. But the findings were
surprisingly unexpected.
For the purpose of the experiments workers were divided into
an experimental room with varied illumination, and a control room with
constant conditions. The production decreased only after the light became
so dim that workers could not see properly. Thus it was discovered that
there was no relationship between the two variables, and illumination (a
physical condition of job) had no effect on the amount of output. When the
intensity of illumination was increased, output also increased in the
experimental room. The researches proceeded to decrease the illumination,
but output once again increased in the experimental room but quite
contrary to their expectations.
These experiments proved that there was something more than
illumination which affected the productivity. This something more provided
a significant clue to investigate the complex human variables affecting
productivity which formed the basis of later experiments.
The relay assembly test room experiments were conducted to
find out the relationship between working condition such as incentive

36
system, rest interval, additional physical facilities, etc., and the productivity.
For this purpose the researchers set up a relay assembly test room and two
girls were chosen – these girls were asked to choose four more girls as co-
workers. The work related to the assembly of telephone relays. Each relay
consisted of a number of parts which the girls assembled into finished
products. Output depended on the speed and continuity with which girls
worked. The experiments started with introducing numerous changes in
sequence, with duration of each change ranging from four to twelve weeks.
An active observer was associated with the girls to supervise their work
before each change was introduced, the girls were consulted. They had the
opportunity to express their viewpoints and concern to the supervisor. Their
ideas and suggestions were sought, and in some cases, they were actually
allowed to take decisions concerning the experiments. The changes and the
resultant output were the incentive was changed so that each girl’s extra
pay was based on the other five. Rather than the output of the larger group
– 100 persons or so; the productivity increases as compared before; two five
minutes rests – one in the morning session and the other in the evening
session – were introduced which were increased to ten minutes later; the
productivity increased; the rest periods were reduced to five minutes each
but the number of such periods was extended; there was a slight fall in the
output and the girls complained that their work rhythm was broken because
of frequent rest periods; the number of rest periods was reduced to two each
for ten minutes, but in the morning, coffee or soup was served along with
sandwich and in the evening snack was provided; the productivity
increased; and changes in the work day were introduced at various times,
such as cutting an hour off at the end of the day and eliminating Saturday
work. The girls were allowed to disperse at 4.30 p.m. instead of 5.00 p.m;
the productivity increased. Later, they were allowed to disperse at 4.00 p.m.;
the productivity remained the same.
As each change was introduced, absenteeism decreased; less
supervision was required and the morale increased. On the basis of these
findings, the researchers concluded that there was a definite relationship
between productivity and various factors being adjusted. At this point of
time, they decided to return everything to its original status that is, 48 hour
work, Saturday working day, no rest period, and no free snacks or coffee.
Surprisingly, productivity took a jump with an average production of 3,000

37
relays per week as compared to 2400 relays before the start of the
experiments. This development caused a considerable amount of redirection
in thinking and the result implied that productivity increased because of a
change in the girls’ attitudes towards work and their work group. They
developed a feeling or stability and a sense of belongingness. Since there
was more freedom of work, they developed a sense of responsibility and self
– discipline. The relationship between supervisor and workers became
conversant with total situation including the home environment and the
social problems faced by each worker.
The Bank Wiring Observation Room study was conducted
between November 1931 and May 1932, with a view to anglicizing the
functioning of a small group and its impact on individual behaviours.
Fourteen male workers were employed in the bank wiring room: nine
wiremen, three solder men and two inspectors. The work involved attaching
wires to switches for certain equipments used in telephone exchange. Hourly
wage rate system based on individual average output and bonus to be
determined by the average group output was followed. The hypothesis was
that to earn more, the workers would produce more individually and help
others to produce more to take advantage of group bonus. However, the
result was different. The group men themselves set the production norm;
anybody attempting to produce more was disfavoured by others and group
pressure was applied to restrict his production. Each individual in the group
was restricting his output significantly below the standard fixed by the
company. The logic for this restricted output revolved around the factors
such as fear of unemployment; most workers were convinced that once they
had reached the standard rate of production, the management would raise
the standard, reasoning that it must be too easy to attain; the group wanted
to protect the slower workers; and the management seemed to accept the
lower production rate.
The workers in the group set certain norms of behaviour
including personal conduct. These norms were you should not turn out too
much work; you should not turn out too little work; you should not say
anything to the supervisor that will react to the detriment of an associate;
and you should not attempt to maintain social distance or act officious.
The workers whose behaviour was in conformity with both
output norm and social norm were most favoured ones. This gave the clue

38
that informal relationship was important and attempts should be made to
see that the interests of the management and of the workers were
identifiable, and attempts should also be made to modify informal group
behaviour to realize organizational objectives.
The Hawthorne experiments laid the foundation for behavioural
approach in management. The significant implications of these experiments
were economic satisfaction and productivity do not necessarily go-together.
Non – economic rewards and functions significantly affect the behaviour of
the workers and limit the effect of economic incentives. The group
determines the behaviour of its members. If a person resists a particular
norm of group behaviour, he tries to change the group norm because any
deviation from the group norm will make him unacceptable to the group.
Therefore, the management cannot deal with the workers as individuals but
as members of work groups, subject to the influence of these groups. A
supervisor is more acceptable as a leader if his style of leadership is in
accordance with the human relations approach. In this context, the
democratic style is the best which provides greater satisfaction to workers.
Communication is an important element in the organization. It is through
effective communication that the workers can be explained about the
reasons and nature of actions taken and their problems identified and
sorted out. Conflicts arise in the organizations because of maladjustment of
individuals and organization. Therefore, the need for solving the problem of
individuals in adjusting with the organization and with the individuals is to
be taken care of by the management. The nature of supervisor has got
something to do with the rate of productivity. Supervision that is friendly to
the worker, attentive, genuinely concerned with the welfare of the workers
affects the productivity favourably.
Mayo’s experiments led to fuller realization and understanding
of the human factors in work situations. His experiments also led to an
emphasis on the importance of an adequate communication system,
particularly upwards. The contributions of Mayo are immensely useful not
only in the industrial sector but also in administrative system of a state,
particularly in the case of bureaucracy. Discovery of informal organization is
a credit owing to Mayo. The importance of group affecting the behaviour of
workers at work is realized through his experiments. All these make him one

39
of the most important human relations theorists and his Hawthorne
experiments a historical landmark in administrative thought.

2.4. The Evolution of the Public Administration during IV Period

between 1948 and 1970
This period is said to be the period of reconstruction and
development to the discipline Public Administration. During this period,
young scholars of Public Administration of America went to the different
countries of the world and studied about their administrative systems. They
found that the administrative systems evolved in the developing countries
were inadequate to implement the policies. Therefore, they said that policy
making which was considered to be the study of Political Science should be
made an integral part of the study of Public Administration.
Policy Science or Policy Analysis was part of the study of
Political Science. It was mainly concerned with making of policies, which was
the concern of the study of Political Science. If policies have to be properly
implemented which is the concern of the study of Public Administration, the
policies themselves should be properly made. Therefore, policy making which
was concern of the study of political Science has become an important area
of the study of Public Administration.
The scholars of Public administration also found that the
administrative systems were inadequate to implement the developmental
programes, and therefore, the concern of development of a country, which is
part of study of Economics, should be made an important part of the study
of Public Administration in the title ‘Development Administration’. Almost all
the countries in the world have become welfare States. They are
implementing lot of developmental programmers for the welfare of the
people. The administrative machinery evolved to implement the police
functions is not suited to implement the development programmers.
Therefore, Development Administration, which is concerned with evolving a
suitable machinery to implement the development programmers, has been
added as an important area of the study of Public Administration.
Ecology of Public Administration has also been added as an
important area of the study of Public Administration as administrative
system forms part of the broad framework of the Political System.
Administrative system is part of a political system. Political system differs

40
from one another. A detailed study of the administrative systems within the
framework of the political systems will provide an opportunity to evolve
suitable administrative systems, similar to that political system. Therefore,
Ecology of Public Administration has become an integral part of the study of
Public Administration.
Comparative Public Administration and International Public
Administration have also been added as important areas of the study of
Public administration. These new areas have added a new dimension to the
study of Public administration. Therefore, this period is said to be the period
of reconstruction and development in the study of Public Administration.
The scholars of Public Administration have included Comparative Public
Administration as an important area in the study of Public Administration.
As a result, comparing the different administrative systems and identifying
the merits and demerits, there is a possibility to evolve a suitable
administrative system for a country by incorporating the merits and avoiding
the demerits in the administrative system.
International organizations are implementing welfare
programmes for the benefits of the weaker sections of the people of the
different countries of the world. Evolving suitable administrative machinery
in different countries to implement the international progremmes has
necessitated including international Public Administration as the part of the
study of Public Administration.

2.5. The Evolution of the Public Administration during V Period 1971

onwards
In this period the discipline Public Administration with
incorporation of new areas has been introduced as an important academic
discipline in the colleges and universities of the different countries of the
world.

2.6. New Public Administration

Since 1968, Contemporary Public Administration has been
enriched with the emergence of the concept New Public Administration. The
following are considered as the landmarks in the growth and emergence of
Contemporary Public Administration.
1. The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service 1967.

41
2. The Philadelphia Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public
Administration, 1967.
3. The Minnow brook Conference, 1968
2.6.1. The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service (1967)

In identified four problems confronting it and suggested

immediate action on them:
1. Insufficient resources at disposal of the discipline.
2. Intellectual argument over the status of the discipline: is it Discipline,
a Science, or Profession?
3. Institutional weakness.
4. Gap between scholars of Public Administration and practicing
administrators.
The Honey Report made the following eleven recommendations:
1. The establishment of a National Commission for Public Service
Education to exert broad leadership in meeting the needs of
Governments for educated manpower.
2. A substantial fellowship programme for postgraduate students, who
are preparing for public service at the master’s and doctoral levels and
also including preparation for professional degrees.
3. Internship programmes to operate at federal, state, and local levels for
post graduate students and advanced under graduates preparing for
public service careers.
4. A special fellowship programmer for those planning to be come
teachers in schools and programs of Public Administration and Public
Affairs.
5. A Programem to provide opportunities for practical Governmental
experience to university faculty engaged in Public Affairs teaching and
research.
6. A Programme of assistance to universities for Public Affairs, curricular
experimentation and development.
7. Support for university personnel engaged in research on
Governmental and Public Affairs issues.
8. Support from Federal, State and Local Governments, as well as from
private industry, for the provision of facilities. To schools and
programems of Public Administration and Public Affairs.

42
 9. The establishment of an advisory service for new Public Affairs
programmes and the development of personnel rosters to provide
current information on experienced graduates of schools of Public
Administration and Public Affairs.
10. It recommended that study of the universities and education for
public service be undertaken, the purposes to show how various types
of institutions now approach their public service educational and
other tasks and to identify simulative and innovative development as
well as deficiencies and problems.
11. The second major and closely associated research proposal was for a
study of the professions, professional education and the public
service.
2.6.2. Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration
(1967)
The American Academy of Political and Social Sciences
organized a conference in Philadelphia in December 1967. James. C. Charles
Worth was the Chairman of the conference.
Public Administration was viewed as an academic discipline, as
a field exercise, and as a profession. Some define Public Administration as
Administration in the ‘Public interest’ while others made it coterminous with
‘Governmental Administration’. There was thus no agreed definition of Public
Administration but there emerged a broad consensus on the following
points:
1. It is just as difficult to delineate the scope of Public Administration, as
it is to define it.
2. Policy Administration dichotomy is erroneous.
3. American Public Administration in as a discipline should deal
restrictively with Public Administration in America.
4. Bureaucracy should be studied functionally as well as structurally.
5. Public Administration and Business Administration training should not
be combined since they are similar only in unimportant aspects.
6. Public Administration as a profession should remain separate from the
profession and discipline of Political Science.
7. Normative administrative theory as well as descriptive analytic theory
in Public Administration is in a state of disarray.
8. A hierarchical pyramidal view of organizational authority is no longer
appropriate. Administrators must view workers as “coordinates” rather

43
 than “subordinates”. The Executive is not so much on top as he is in
the center, being affected by “subordinates” who surround him.
9. Policy and political considerations are replacing management ability as
the major focus of concern in Public Administration. Computerized
information is not good simply because it is computerized. Nor does
Planning Programming Budgeting System (PPBS) provide reliable
political answers. Quantification and cost analysis cover only a small
part of the total factors in a decision.
10. Administrative of the future should be trained in professional schools;
Public Administration curricula should emphasize not only
administrative organization and procedures but also the “psychological,
financial sociological, and anthropological development of the subject”.
11. Public Administrative on has not been able to deal with societal
problems. Public Administration theory “has not caught up with
emerging problems, like the huge military industrial complex, riots,
labor unions and strikes, public school conflicts, slums, the
impingement of science, and developing countries”.
12. Public Administration is a discipline but is cannot employ all the
methodologies of the contemporary social science. While parts of Public
Administration are capable of using scientific methods, others, which
are the most important parts of the discipline, are not amendable to
scientific treatments. In the words of Charles Worth: “We can be
scientific, if we severally limit the scope of our discipline, but if we did,
would we not excise its most valuable parts? And we are scientific in
some corners, our subject is heavy with values and prescriptions, we
can never be scientific”.
2.6.3. The Minnow brook Conference (1968)
This conference was the youth conference on Public
Administration. It gave rise to the concept New Public Administration. It was
this conference, which expressed, very loudly, and clearly the dissatisfaction
with the state of the discipline.
It was the first one, which sought to give a new image to Public
Administration, a subject actively concerned with the problems of the society
and full of reformist intentions.
The outcome of the Minnowbrrok conference was the
publication of two books. They are:

44
 1. “Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnow brook
Perspective”, edited by Frank Marini, 1971
2. “Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence” edited by Dwight
Waldo, 1971.
There has been so serious publication on New Public
Administration since 1971. Surely, articles have been appearing, but they
fall into two broad categories. Some of these articles support the movement
while others criticize even denounce it.
The classical values of Public Administration have been
efficiency, economy, productivity, and centralization. New Public
Administration fosters a new set of values. It advocates humanism,
decentralization, delegation, pluralism, personal growth, individual dignity
etc. it rejects the view that Administration is value neutral. It advocates
citizen participation and neighborhood control over street level
bureaucracies. It supports bureaucratic responsiveness.
2.7. Conclusion
Though Public Administration as a discipline is about century
old, through various phases in the evolution of the study of Public
Administration, it has grown into a very important discipline called New
Public Administration. The academicians and parishioners of the discipline
should make sincere efforts in the right direction to enable the discipline
regains a status and a place of respectability like other discipline of social
sciences.

2.8. Model Questions

1. Bring out the evolution of Public Administration

2. Explain the contribution of Herbert [Link] and Elton Mayo to the
evolution of Public Administration
3. Write an essay on New Public Administration

2.9. Answers to the Questions

For Question Number 1 .. Refer Section 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4 and 2.5

Question Number 2 .. Refer Section 2.3

Question Number 3 .. Refer Section 2.6

45