Gunel Mukhtarova
Chapter3
Traditional Model of Public Administration
Public administration as both theory and practice began in the late nineteenth century, became formalized
somewhere between 1900 and 1920, and lasted in most Western countries largely unchanged until the last
quarter of the twentieth century.
The traditional model can be characterized as: an administration under the formal control of the political
leadership, based on a strictly hierarchical model of bureaucracy, staffed by permanent, neutral and
anonymous officials, motivated only by the public interest, serving any governing party equally, and not
contributing to policy but merely administering those policies decided by the politicians. The traditional
model of public administration remains the longest standing and most successful theory of management
in the public sector, but is now being replaced. It has not disappeared overnight and elements of it still
exist, but its theories and practices are now considered old-fashioned and no longer relevant to the needs
of a rapidly changing society.
Early Administration
Egypt: to administer irrigation from the annual flood of the Nile and to build pyramids.
China: Han dynasty adopted the Confucian precept that government should be handled by men chosen,
not by birth, but by virtue and ability and its main aim was the happiness of the people.
Although some kind of administration existed earlier, however, the traditional model of public
administration really dates from as late as the mid-nineteenth century.
Earlier systems of administration shared one important characteristic. They were ‘personal’, that is,
based on loyalty to a particular individual such as a king or a minister, instead of being ‘impersonal’,
based on legality and loyalty to the organization and the state. Their practices often resulted in corruption
or misuse of office for personal gain, although the very idea that these are undesirable features of
administration itself only derives from the traditional model.
It was once common for those aspiring to employment by the state to resort to patronage or nepotism,
relying on friends or relatives for employment, or by purchasing offices; that is, to pay for the right to be
a customs or tax collector, and then to charge fees to clients, both to repay the initial sum invested and to
make a profit.
Spoil system:
After an election in which a new party was elected – and this applied to elections from the local level to
the Presidency – every administrative job from the top to the bottom could be filled by an appointee from
the winning party. In other words, there is no specific expertise involved in public administration, nor is
there any reason that the administration of government should persist when its political complexion
changes. The benefits of public office – patronage, direct financial benefits – rightly belong to the
successful party in an election.
Pre-modern bureaucracies were ‘personal, traditional, diffuse, ascriptive and particularistic’ where
modern bureaucracies, exemplified by Weber, were to become ‘impersonal, rational, specific,
achievement-oriented and universalistic’.
The reforms of the nineteenth century
, Gunel Mukhtarova
In 1854 (Britain) , the Northcote–Trevelyan Report recommended:
The abolition of patronage and the substitution of recruitment by open competitive examinations
under the supervision of a central examining board;
Reorganization of office staffs of central departments in broad classes to deal with intellectual
and mechanical work respectively;
And filling higher posts by promotion from inside based on merit.
Pendleton Act (1883), Civil Service Commission:
Holding competitive examinations for all applicants to the classified service
The making of appointments to the classified service from those graded highest in the
examination
The interposition of an effective probationary period before absolute appointment
The apportionment of appointments at Washington according to the population of several
states and other major areas.
Weber formulated the theory of bureaucracy, the idea of a distinct, professional public service, recruited
and appointed by merit, politically neutral, which would remain in office throughout changes in
government. Wilson put forth the view that politicians should be responsible for making policy, while the
administration would be responsible for carrying it out. From both is derived the notion that
administration could be instrumental and technical, removed from the political sphere.
Weber’s theory of bureaucracy
The most important theoretical principle of the traditional model of administration is Weber’s theory of
bureaucracy. Weber argued there were three types of authority: the charismatic – the appeal of an
extraordinary leader; the traditional – such as the authority of a tribal chief; and rational/legal authority.
Weber set out six principles for modern systems of bureaucracy, deriving from the idea of rational-legal
authority (Gerth and Mills, 1970, pp. 196–8):
1. The principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules,
that is by laws or administrative regulations. (This means that authority derives from the law,
and from rules made according to law. No other form of authority is to be followed).
2. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered
system of super- and sub-ordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the
higher ones. (Hierarchy, perhaps the most familiar of Weber’s ideas. Strict hierarchy meant
that rational/legal authority and power were maintained organizationally, not by any
individual but by the position he or she held in the hierarchy. Particular functions could be
delegated to lower levels as the hierarchical structure meant that any official could act with
the authority of the whole organization).
3. The management of the modern office is based upon written documents (‘the files’), which
are preserved. The body of officials actively engaged in ‘public’ office, along with the
respective apparatus of material implements and the files, make up a ‘bureau’ ... In general,
bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life ...
Public monies and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. (The
organization is something with an existence separate from the private lives of its employees,
it is quite impersonal. Written documents are preserved; only with the existence of files can
the organization be consistent in its applications of the rules).
Chapter3
Traditional Model of Public Administration
Public administration as both theory and practice began in the late nineteenth century, became formalized
somewhere between 1900 and 1920, and lasted in most Western countries largely unchanged until the last
quarter of the twentieth century.
The traditional model can be characterized as: an administration under the formal control of the political
leadership, based on a strictly hierarchical model of bureaucracy, staffed by permanent, neutral and
anonymous officials, motivated only by the public interest, serving any governing party equally, and not
contributing to policy but merely administering those policies decided by the politicians. The traditional
model of public administration remains the longest standing and most successful theory of management
in the public sector, but is now being replaced. It has not disappeared overnight and elements of it still
exist, but its theories and practices are now considered old-fashioned and no longer relevant to the needs
of a rapidly changing society.
Early Administration
Egypt: to administer irrigation from the annual flood of the Nile and to build pyramids.
China: Han dynasty adopted the Confucian precept that government should be handled by men chosen,
not by birth, but by virtue and ability and its main aim was the happiness of the people.
Although some kind of administration existed earlier, however, the traditional model of public
administration really dates from as late as the mid-nineteenth century.
Earlier systems of administration shared one important characteristic. They were ‘personal’, that is,
based on loyalty to a particular individual such as a king or a minister, instead of being ‘impersonal’,
based on legality and loyalty to the organization and the state. Their practices often resulted in corruption
or misuse of office for personal gain, although the very idea that these are undesirable features of
administration itself only derives from the traditional model.
It was once common for those aspiring to employment by the state to resort to patronage or nepotism,
relying on friends or relatives for employment, or by purchasing offices; that is, to pay for the right to be
a customs or tax collector, and then to charge fees to clients, both to repay the initial sum invested and to
make a profit.
Spoil system:
After an election in which a new party was elected – and this applied to elections from the local level to
the Presidency – every administrative job from the top to the bottom could be filled by an appointee from
the winning party. In other words, there is no specific expertise involved in public administration, nor is
there any reason that the administration of government should persist when its political complexion
changes. The benefits of public office – patronage, direct financial benefits – rightly belong to the
successful party in an election.
Pre-modern bureaucracies were ‘personal, traditional, diffuse, ascriptive and particularistic’ where
modern bureaucracies, exemplified by Weber, were to become ‘impersonal, rational, specific,
achievement-oriented and universalistic’.
The reforms of the nineteenth century
, Gunel Mukhtarova
In 1854 (Britain) , the Northcote–Trevelyan Report recommended:
The abolition of patronage and the substitution of recruitment by open competitive examinations
under the supervision of a central examining board;
Reorganization of office staffs of central departments in broad classes to deal with intellectual
and mechanical work respectively;
And filling higher posts by promotion from inside based on merit.
Pendleton Act (1883), Civil Service Commission:
Holding competitive examinations for all applicants to the classified service
The making of appointments to the classified service from those graded highest in the
examination
The interposition of an effective probationary period before absolute appointment
The apportionment of appointments at Washington according to the population of several
states and other major areas.
Weber formulated the theory of bureaucracy, the idea of a distinct, professional public service, recruited
and appointed by merit, politically neutral, which would remain in office throughout changes in
government. Wilson put forth the view that politicians should be responsible for making policy, while the
administration would be responsible for carrying it out. From both is derived the notion that
administration could be instrumental and technical, removed from the political sphere.
Weber’s theory of bureaucracy
The most important theoretical principle of the traditional model of administration is Weber’s theory of
bureaucracy. Weber argued there were three types of authority: the charismatic – the appeal of an
extraordinary leader; the traditional – such as the authority of a tribal chief; and rational/legal authority.
Weber set out six principles for modern systems of bureaucracy, deriving from the idea of rational-legal
authority (Gerth and Mills, 1970, pp. 196–8):
1. The principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules,
that is by laws or administrative regulations. (This means that authority derives from the law,
and from rules made according to law. No other form of authority is to be followed).
2. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered
system of super- and sub-ordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the
higher ones. (Hierarchy, perhaps the most familiar of Weber’s ideas. Strict hierarchy meant
that rational/legal authority and power were maintained organizationally, not by any
individual but by the position he or she held in the hierarchy. Particular functions could be
delegated to lower levels as the hierarchical structure meant that any official could act with
the authority of the whole organization).
3. The management of the modern office is based upon written documents (‘the files’), which
are preserved. The body of officials actively engaged in ‘public’ office, along with the
respective apparatus of material implements and the files, make up a ‘bureau’ ... In general,
bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life ...
Public monies and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. (The
organization is something with an existence separate from the private lives of its employees,
it is quite impersonal. Written documents are preserved; only with the existence of files can
the organization be consistent in its applications of the rules).
