Makalah ICPM 2014 Quo vadis PA Dr. Sukarso 0
Quo-Vadis Public Administration
Sukarso
[email protected]
Public Administration Dept. Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
Jenderal Soedirman University
For 3th ICPM - August 19th, 2014, Bali - Indonesia
Introduction
In this long odyssey, more than a century, "Public Administration" experienced growth
and shifted in the application of concepts and theories to explain and resolve a variety
of problems, both practical and academically. We can trace it from the various records
of the expert in this field, both diachronically and dialectically. Application of the
various concepts and theories are proportionally to the efforts of objectives
achievement and resolve problems which is arose during this time.
Achievement of objectives, directly or not, says welfare, it is clear that in addition to
the difficulty of achieving these goals technically, it is also a dynamic destination.
Concepts and theories are often too late to formulate and anticipate the dynamics of
public issues. The task to alleviate amount of poverty in developing countries, for
example, there has not been a bench-marking that can be accepted. Even breakdown
any goal to the work plan was technically remains debated.
Dynamics or the problems arose in the public, explicitly, is most determined by social,
economic, and political conditions for each country. Indonesia, for example, in the last
two decades, democratization is much more important than economic growth. Thirty
years ago, on the contrary, economic growth is much more important than people's
participation. And so on, the problem is always dynamic, even artificial. In this case, the
concept and or the theory are often missed and just a response to these problems.
Meanwhile, destination of the application of concepts and theories are remaining
unclear, especially in the various scholars in public administration study (different
philosophy course). This is possible because, first, the public (administration) problems
so wide or, second, abstraction and imagination of public administration purposes are
different, as well as the dynamics of the problem itself.
The Development of Concepts and Theories Applied on
Diachronically, development or exactly a collection of concepts and theories that have
been applied by scholars of public administration are countless. Nevertheless, it can
briefly and simply be divided into several schools of thought, such as classical, neo-
classical and modern. While dialectically, diachronically of course, I think there are two
relatively distinctive schools of thought, namely the modern and hidden one, the
new
public administration, I would rather to say it as Considerate Public
Administration, while both are a "response" (if I can say so) of the fashioned failures in
achieving the main objectives of Public Administration (public welfare).
Just an example, the diachronically, Safritz and Hyde (2012) pretty much inventories
concepts and theories used in public administration during the time, while dialectically,
Frederickson (1997, 2005, 2012) and his friends, proposed new issues fairly basic in
public administration.
Simple scheme of the concepts and theories variation applied in Public
Administration:
Effectiveness/
Efficiently
Neo-classic
Openness and competition
(professionalism)
Modern PA
Classic/Old PA
New PA
Social
equity/Fairnes
s
Considerate PA, Post-Mo
Citizenship and Affirmative
(patriotism - benevolence)
Agenda
?
Both the research and practice of Public Administration, I would like to convey two
main streams that can be identified, the first common stream (popular), say it so, and
hidden stream (sapless) as I said above.
In common stream (popular), based on the classical theories such as Taylor, Weber,
Gulick, Waldo in the early 20th century until the mid-20th century, then it "enhanced"
by the
humanity
theories (Humanize: psychology/behaviors) such as Barnard,
Maslow, and McGregor. After this stage, there is manipulated use of the concept
human resources up to the present (Miles, 1976). Then on the modern stage,
appearing various theories adopted of policy formulation, implementation and
evaluation, and theories of modern management, such as Osborne and Gaebler (1992),
governance (good, dynamic, collaborative, smart) spreadsheet, and so on. Thereafter,
there are a lot of efforts to explain for both academic and practice, such as how to
realize governance. For this activity, a variety of international donors are welcome to
fund it at any budget.
While on sapless stream, there are several attempts to restore the government's
domain for the public welfare with equitable public administration. It, then, forwarded
to continuing efforts in achieve social equity by manipulating public administration to
be hospitable and attentive, (public administration with) an attitude (Frederickson,
2005). I would like to call it the whole-hearted of public administration (considerate
public administration). In both schools of thought, there are two different agendas as
well. In the main stream or a common, there is a clear agenda on governance
sharpening which is market oriented and competition, while on another one, the
agenda also on how the public administration can be more humane and friendly for all
citizens. Two agendas seem like will not synchronies met in the near future, even they
will be contradictory. Morally, this possibility would be of concern because the last
excess victims are the citizens as a whole.
On the main stream, search ethical values tend to seek justification for a market
mechanism (governance), while the sapless stream; searching ethical values tend to be
justification for help the weak people or citizens to participate in the market or
competition.
Agendas
Agendas on the domain, task and scope reflected what the government is supposed to
do; it seems there are still significant differences even though there is a same explicit
goal. In this case, we realize it or not, there are competing values which is chosen to be
realized immediately. The values are effectiveness and efficiency, democratization and
participation, governance with all its variants, professionalism, citizenship, justice, and
patriotism as well as benevolence.
While the agenda of methodology so far do not appear significant difference, there are
from the inductive-empirical approach as well as deductive-theoretical approach.
Nonetheless, aspects of this epistemology can actually sought other alternatives beside
that had been applied and has been well established. Argyris, et al. (1985), have been
sharpening through method of action research approach, in action science. This
method is already used in public administration, action research, but rather on the very
small field, organizational development. Outside of the organizational development,
implementation and development of the research is remains limited action among
scholars of public administration, even it have been underestimated because of
inadequate or weak in constructing the theory, weak in generalization. Even so, it was
likely to benefit of the application of action research in public administration. By this
method it is possible to mix explanatory research with participatory research appraisal,
how confirm general theory in specific cases in the organization of public
administration. The resulting principles, theory, can be generalized, although very
limited. It may be that public administration research methods can be extracted from
this epistemology issue.
Conclusion
By the developmental theories in Public Administration so far, it appears that the
research agenda on the domain remains unclear from the perspective of a solid and
largely agreed Public Administration degree. Most are still busy with the application or
development of concepts of governance, while others are still lonely and almost no
echo (sapless) in the effort to develop the concepts that are more "humane", such as
patriotism and benevolence.
Main sources:
Chris Argyris, Chris (et al.), 1985, Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for
Research and Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Frederickson, H. George, 1997, The Spirit of Public Administration, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Frederickson, H. George (et al.), 2012, Public Administration Theory Primer, Westview
Press, Philadelphia
Shafritz, Jay M. and Albert C. Hyde 2012, Public Administration: Classic Readings,
Wadsworth (Nelson Education, Ltd., Canada).
Sukarso
[email protected]
Public Administration Dept. Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
Jenderal Soedirman University
For 3th ICPM - August 19th, 2014, Bali - Indonesia
Introduction
In this long odyssey, more than a century, "Public Administration" experienced growth
and shifted in the application of concepts and theories to explain and resolve a variety
of problems, both practical and academically. We can trace it from the various records
of the expert in this field, both diachronically and dialectically. Application of the
various concepts and theories are proportionally to the efforts of objectives
achievement and resolve problems which is arose during this time.
Achievement of objectives, directly or not, says welfare, it is clear that in addition to
the difficulty of achieving these goals technically, it is also a dynamic destination.
Concepts and theories are often too late to formulate and anticipate the dynamics of
public issues. The task to alleviate amount of poverty in developing countries, for
example, there has not been a bench-marking that can be accepted. Even breakdown
any goal to the work plan was technically remains debated.
Dynamics or the problems arose in the public, explicitly, is most determined by social,
economic, and political conditions for each country. Indonesia, for example, in the last
two decades, democratization is much more important than economic growth. Thirty
years ago, on the contrary, economic growth is much more important than people's
participation. And so on, the problem is always dynamic, even artificial. In this case, the
concept and or the theory are often missed and just a response to these problems.
Meanwhile, destination of the application of concepts and theories are remaining
unclear, especially in the various scholars in public administration study (different
philosophy course). This is possible because, first, the public (administration) problems
so wide or, second, abstraction and imagination of public administration purposes are
different, as well as the dynamics of the problem itself.
The Development of Concepts and Theories Applied on
Diachronically, development or exactly a collection of concepts and theories that have
been applied by scholars of public administration are countless. Nevertheless, it can
briefly and simply be divided into several schools of thought, such as classical, neo-
classical and modern. While dialectically, diachronically of course, I think there are two
relatively distinctive schools of thought, namely the modern and hidden one, the
new
public administration, I would rather to say it as Considerate Public
Administration, while both are a "response" (if I can say so) of the fashioned failures in
achieving the main objectives of Public Administration (public welfare).
Just an example, the diachronically, Safritz and Hyde (2012) pretty much inventories
concepts and theories used in public administration during the time, while dialectically,
Frederickson (1997, 2005, 2012) and his friends, proposed new issues fairly basic in
public administration.
Simple scheme of the concepts and theories variation applied in Public
Administration:
Effectiveness/
Efficiently
Neo-classic
Openness and competition
(professionalism)
Modern PA
Classic/Old PA
New PA
Social
equity/Fairnes
s
Considerate PA, Post-Mo
Citizenship and Affirmative
(patriotism - benevolence)
Agenda
?
Both the research and practice of Public Administration, I would like to convey two
main streams that can be identified, the first common stream (popular), say it so, and
hidden stream (sapless) as I said above.
In common stream (popular), based on the classical theories such as Taylor, Weber,
Gulick, Waldo in the early 20th century until the mid-20th century, then it "enhanced"
by the
humanity
theories (Humanize: psychology/behaviors) such as Barnard,
Maslow, and McGregor. After this stage, there is manipulated use of the concept
human resources up to the present (Miles, 1976). Then on the modern stage,
appearing various theories adopted of policy formulation, implementation and
evaluation, and theories of modern management, such as Osborne and Gaebler (1992),
governance (good, dynamic, collaborative, smart) spreadsheet, and so on. Thereafter,
there are a lot of efforts to explain for both academic and practice, such as how to
realize governance. For this activity, a variety of international donors are welcome to
fund it at any budget.
While on sapless stream, there are several attempts to restore the government's
domain for the public welfare with equitable public administration. It, then, forwarded
to continuing efforts in achieve social equity by manipulating public administration to
be hospitable and attentive, (public administration with) an attitude (Frederickson,
2005). I would like to call it the whole-hearted of public administration (considerate
public administration). In both schools of thought, there are two different agendas as
well. In the main stream or a common, there is a clear agenda on governance
sharpening which is market oriented and competition, while on another one, the
agenda also on how the public administration can be more humane and friendly for all
citizens. Two agendas seem like will not synchronies met in the near future, even they
will be contradictory. Morally, this possibility would be of concern because the last
excess victims are the citizens as a whole.
On the main stream, search ethical values tend to seek justification for a market
mechanism (governance), while the sapless stream; searching ethical values tend to be
justification for help the weak people or citizens to participate in the market or
competition.
Agendas
Agendas on the domain, task and scope reflected what the government is supposed to
do; it seems there are still significant differences even though there is a same explicit
goal. In this case, we realize it or not, there are competing values which is chosen to be
realized immediately. The values are effectiveness and efficiency, democratization and
participation, governance with all its variants, professionalism, citizenship, justice, and
patriotism as well as benevolence.
While the agenda of methodology so far do not appear significant difference, there are
from the inductive-empirical approach as well as deductive-theoretical approach.
Nonetheless, aspects of this epistemology can actually sought other alternatives beside
that had been applied and has been well established. Argyris, et al. (1985), have been
sharpening through method of action research approach, in action science. This
method is already used in public administration, action research, but rather on the very
small field, organizational development. Outside of the organizational development,
implementation and development of the research is remains limited action among
scholars of public administration, even it have been underestimated because of
inadequate or weak in constructing the theory, weak in generalization. Even so, it was
likely to benefit of the application of action research in public administration. By this
method it is possible to mix explanatory research with participatory research appraisal,
how confirm general theory in specific cases in the organization of public
administration. The resulting principles, theory, can be generalized, although very
limited. It may be that public administration research methods can be extracted from
this epistemology issue.
Conclusion
By the developmental theories in Public Administration so far, it appears that the
research agenda on the domain remains unclear from the perspective of a solid and
largely agreed Public Administration degree. Most are still busy with the application or
development of concepts of governance, while others are still lonely and almost no
echo (sapless) in the effort to develop the concepts that are more "humane", such as
patriotism and benevolence.
Main sources:
Chris Argyris, Chris (et al.), 1985, Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for
Research and Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Frederickson, H. George, 1997, The Spirit of Public Administration, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Frederickson, H. George (et al.), 2012, Public Administration Theory Primer, Westview
Press, Philadelphia
Shafritz, Jay M. and Albert C. Hyde 2012, Public Administration: Classic Readings,
Wadsworth (Nelson Education, Ltd., Canada).