Gunel Mukhtarova
Chapter 1
An Era of Change
The traditional model of public administration, which pre- dominated for most of the twentieth century,
has changed since the mid-1980s to a flexible, market-based form of public management. This is not
simply a matter of reform or a minor change in management style, but a change in the role of government
in society and the relationship between government and citizenry. Traditional public administration has
been discredited theoretically and practically, and the adoption of new forms of public management
means the emergence of a new paradigm in the public sector. This new paradigm poses a direct challenge
to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public
administration:
1. The first of these was that of bureaucracy, that governments should organize them- selves
according to the hierarchical, bureaucratic principles most clearly enunciated in the classic
analysis of bureaucracy by the German sociologist Max Weber. (First, bureaucracy is indeed
powerful but does not work well in all circumstances and has some negative consequences)
2. Secondly, there was one-best-way of working and procedures were set out in comprehensive
manuals for administrators to follow. Strict adherence to these scientific management principles
(Taylor, 1911) would provide the single best way of operating an organization. (Secondly, trying
to find the one-best-way is elusive and can lead to rigidity in operation. Flexible management
systems pioneered by the private sector are being adopted by governments.)
3. The third principle was bureaucratic delivery; once government involved itself in a policy area, it
also became the direct provider of goods and services through the bureaucracy. (Delivery by
bureaucracy is not the only way to provide public goods and services; governments can operate
indirectly through subsidies, regulation or contracts, instead of always being the direct provider.)
4. Fourthly, there was general belief among administrators in the politics/administration dichotomy,
that is, where political and administrative matters could be separated.( political and administrative
matters have in reality been intertwined for a long time, but the implications of this for
management structures are only now being worked through. The public demands better
mechanisms of accountability where once the bureaucracy operated separately from the society.)
5. Fifthly, the motivation of the individual public servant was assumed to be that of the public
interest; in that service to the public was provided selflessly. (While there may be public servants
motivated by the public interest, it now seems incontrovertible that they are political players in
their own right. They may also be assumed to work for their own advancement and that of their
agency, instead of being pure and self- less.)
6. Sixthly, public administration was considered a special kind of activity and, therefore, required a
professional bureaucracy, neutral, anonymous, employed for life, with the ability to serve any
political master equally. (the case for unusual employment conditions in the public services is
now much weaker, especially given the changes that have taken place in the private sector where
jobs for life are rare.)
7. Seventhly, the tasks involved in public service were indeed administrative in the dictionary sense,
that is, following the instructions provided by others without personal responsibility for results.
(The tasks involved in the pub- lic sector are now considered more managerial, that is, requiring
someone to take responsibility for the achievement of results, instead of being regarded as
administrative and with public servants merely following instructions.)
A new paradigm
There is some debate over whether or not public management, particularly the new public management, is
a new paradigm for public sector management. Traditional model of administration is based on
bureaucracy; public management is based on markets.
, Gunel Mukhtarova
A paradigm does not mean one set of views that everyone must agree on, rather views that exist for a time
and are revealed in the discipline’s practices. Traditional model of administration, derived from Weber,
Wilson and Taylor, does fit this in sense of there being, at a given time, a corpus of knowledge,
textbooks, and ways of approaching the trade. It derives from theory of bureaucracy. The PM paradigm
has the very different underlying theoretical bases of economics and private management. New
management paradigm emphasis results in terms of “value for money”, to be achieved through
management by objectives, the use of markets and market type mechanism, competition and choice, and
devolution to staff through a better matching of authority, responsibility and accountability.
The Emergence of a new approach
By the beginning of the 1990s, a new model of public sector management had emerged in most advanced
countries and many developing ones. Initially, the new model had several names, including:
‘managerialism’; ‘new public management’; ‘market-based public administration’; the ‘post-bureaucratic
paradigm’ or ‘entrepreneurial government’. Despite the differing names, they all essentially describe the
same phenomenon.
(i) cutting red tape ‘shifting from systems in which people are accountable for following rules to systems
in which they are accountable for achieving results’; (ii) putting customers first; (iii) empowering
employees to get results; and (iv) cutting back to basics and ‘producing better government for less’
The underlying theories of the traditional model of public administration; based on bureaucracy, one-best-
way, the public interest and a separation of politics from administration, all had their problems. Indeed,
the new public management paradigm is ‘a direct response to the inadequacies of traditional public
administration – particularly to the inadequacies of public bureaucracies’. The public management
reforms have been driven by totally different underlying theories: that economic motivations can be
assumed for all players in government; that private management flexibility provides lessons for
government; and that there can be no separation of politics from administration.
Administration and Management
It is argued here that administration is a narrower and more limited function than management and, in
consequence, changing from public administration to public management means a major change of theory
and of function. The words are close in meaning, but a brief foray into semantics allows a case to be made
that the terms ‘management’ and ‘administration’ are significantly different and that a manager performs
a different role from an administrator. The Oxford Dictionary defines administration (to serve, and hence
later, to govern) as: ‘an act of administering’, which is then ‘to manage the affairs of’ or ‘to direct or
superintend the execution, use or conduct of’, while management (to control by hand) is: ‘to conduct, to
control the course of affairs by one’s own action, to take charge of’.
From these various definitions it is argued that administration essentially involves following instructions
and service, while management involves: first, the achievement of results, and secondly, personal
responsibility by the manager for results being achieved. The terms administration and management are
not synonymous, neither is their application to the public sector. Public administration is an activity
serving the public, and public servants carry out policies derived from others. It is concerned with
procedures, with translating policies into action and with office management. Management does include
administration (Mullins, 1996, pp. 398–400), but also involves organization to achieve objectives with
maximum efficiency, as well as genuine responsibility for results. These two elements were not
necessarily present in the traditional administrative system. Public administration focuses on process, on
Chapter 1
An Era of Change
The traditional model of public administration, which pre- dominated for most of the twentieth century,
has changed since the mid-1980s to a flexible, market-based form of public management. This is not
simply a matter of reform or a minor change in management style, but a change in the role of government
in society and the relationship between government and citizenry. Traditional public administration has
been discredited theoretically and practically, and the adoption of new forms of public management
means the emergence of a new paradigm in the public sector. This new paradigm poses a direct challenge
to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public
administration:
1. The first of these was that of bureaucracy, that governments should organize them- selves
according to the hierarchical, bureaucratic principles most clearly enunciated in the classic
analysis of bureaucracy by the German sociologist Max Weber. (First, bureaucracy is indeed
powerful but does not work well in all circumstances and has some negative consequences)
2. Secondly, there was one-best-way of working and procedures were set out in comprehensive
manuals for administrators to follow. Strict adherence to these scientific management principles
(Taylor, 1911) would provide the single best way of operating an organization. (Secondly, trying
to find the one-best-way is elusive and can lead to rigidity in operation. Flexible management
systems pioneered by the private sector are being adopted by governments.)
3. The third principle was bureaucratic delivery; once government involved itself in a policy area, it
also became the direct provider of goods and services through the bureaucracy. (Delivery by
bureaucracy is not the only way to provide public goods and services; governments can operate
indirectly through subsidies, regulation or contracts, instead of always being the direct provider.)
4. Fourthly, there was general belief among administrators in the politics/administration dichotomy,
that is, where political and administrative matters could be separated.( political and administrative
matters have in reality been intertwined for a long time, but the implications of this for
management structures are only now being worked through. The public demands better
mechanisms of accountability where once the bureaucracy operated separately from the society.)
5. Fifthly, the motivation of the individual public servant was assumed to be that of the public
interest; in that service to the public was provided selflessly. (While there may be public servants
motivated by the public interest, it now seems incontrovertible that they are political players in
their own right. They may also be assumed to work for their own advancement and that of their
agency, instead of being pure and self- less.)
6. Sixthly, public administration was considered a special kind of activity and, therefore, required a
professional bureaucracy, neutral, anonymous, employed for life, with the ability to serve any
political master equally. (the case for unusual employment conditions in the public services is
now much weaker, especially given the changes that have taken place in the private sector where
jobs for life are rare.)
7. Seventhly, the tasks involved in public service were indeed administrative in the dictionary sense,
that is, following the instructions provided by others without personal responsibility for results.
(The tasks involved in the pub- lic sector are now considered more managerial, that is, requiring
someone to take responsibility for the achievement of results, instead of being regarded as
administrative and with public servants merely following instructions.)
A new paradigm
There is some debate over whether or not public management, particularly the new public management, is
a new paradigm for public sector management. Traditional model of administration is based on
bureaucracy; public management is based on markets.
, Gunel Mukhtarova
A paradigm does not mean one set of views that everyone must agree on, rather views that exist for a time
and are revealed in the discipline’s practices. Traditional model of administration, derived from Weber,
Wilson and Taylor, does fit this in sense of there being, at a given time, a corpus of knowledge,
textbooks, and ways of approaching the trade. It derives from theory of bureaucracy. The PM paradigm
has the very different underlying theoretical bases of economics and private management. New
management paradigm emphasis results in terms of “value for money”, to be achieved through
management by objectives, the use of markets and market type mechanism, competition and choice, and
devolution to staff through a better matching of authority, responsibility and accountability.
The Emergence of a new approach
By the beginning of the 1990s, a new model of public sector management had emerged in most advanced
countries and many developing ones. Initially, the new model had several names, including:
‘managerialism’; ‘new public management’; ‘market-based public administration’; the ‘post-bureaucratic
paradigm’ or ‘entrepreneurial government’. Despite the differing names, they all essentially describe the
same phenomenon.
(i) cutting red tape ‘shifting from systems in which people are accountable for following rules to systems
in which they are accountable for achieving results’; (ii) putting customers first; (iii) empowering
employees to get results; and (iv) cutting back to basics and ‘producing better government for less’
The underlying theories of the traditional model of public administration; based on bureaucracy, one-best-
way, the public interest and a separation of politics from administration, all had their problems. Indeed,
the new public management paradigm is ‘a direct response to the inadequacies of traditional public
administration – particularly to the inadequacies of public bureaucracies’. The public management
reforms have been driven by totally different underlying theories: that economic motivations can be
assumed for all players in government; that private management flexibility provides lessons for
government; and that there can be no separation of politics from administration.
Administration and Management
It is argued here that administration is a narrower and more limited function than management and, in
consequence, changing from public administration to public management means a major change of theory
and of function. The words are close in meaning, but a brief foray into semantics allows a case to be made
that the terms ‘management’ and ‘administration’ are significantly different and that a manager performs
a different role from an administrator. The Oxford Dictionary defines administration (to serve, and hence
later, to govern) as: ‘an act of administering’, which is then ‘to manage the affairs of’ or ‘to direct or
superintend the execution, use or conduct of’, while management (to control by hand) is: ‘to conduct, to
control the course of affairs by one’s own action, to take charge of’.
From these various definitions it is argued that administration essentially involves following instructions
and service, while management involves: first, the achievement of results, and secondly, personal
responsibility by the manager for results being achieved. The terms administration and management are
not synonymous, neither is their application to the public sector. Public administration is an activity
serving the public, and public servants carry out policies derived from others. It is concerned with
procedures, with translating policies into action and with office management. Management does include
administration (Mullins, 1996, pp. 398–400), but also involves organization to achieve objectives with
maximum efficiency, as well as genuine responsibility for results. These two elements were not
necessarily present in the traditional administrative system. Public administration focuses on process, on
