The meaning of public administration

People form organizations to accomplish goals which the cannot achieve individually.

One such organization is the government. The people’s involvement with government

becomes inescapable since its establishment. It has become an essential part of both

their individual and group efforts. Inevitably, it has assumed not only coordination but

also the control function of their society.

With such developments, public administration has become the essential tool of

government in the performance of achieving its functions. It is there wherever the

government is needed. Thus it has become inextricably interwoven not only into the

administrative structure of government but also into the fabric of human life.

Public administration is never static. It is a dynamic organ of government which

keeps on responding to the requirements of the times. It has progressed rapidly over

the past decades. Despite political setbacks, it has achieved an impressive record of

growth. It is expected, therefore that the continuity of government, if not the state itself

rests upon its ability to discharge effectively its functions, notwithstanding the passage

of time and events, or even the frequent changes in the attitudes of people. Government

achieves continuity by conforming to the customs, traditions, and temperament of the

people. As such it serves not only as the “government’s central instrument for dealing

with general social problems” but also as an effective measure for strengthening society

itself.

Politics and public administration are interrelated and interwoven; in fact, knotted

to each other. Public administration is a productive partner of politics in bringing the

affairs of government’s serving the citizens as well as the vehicle for spurring their

participation in the administration of government. These viewpoints are of course much

more satisfactorily accepted by those in administrative practices than when they are

theoretically discussed as concepts of public administration. This chapter’s objective is

therefore the discuss the following subjects:

1. What is Public Administration?

2. What is Management?

3. Is Public Administration an Art or a Science?

4. Difference between Public Administration and Private Administration

What is public Administration?

There have been discussions not ony on what public administration is but also on

its nature, scope and thrusts. Public administration is commonly defined as “government

in action.” In this sense, says Raul P. de Guzman “wherever there is government there

is public administration, it refers to cooperative human action to achieve the purposes of

government. Simply stated it is a broad definition based on cursory visual perceptions of

it. However public administration is a much more complex entity. It performs a variety of

distinct but equally important related functions.

Public administration calls for action and as defined by Leonard D. white, is

“concerned with action in particular concrete situations but in accordance with long

range objectives.” In effect he clarifies the concept of “government in action.”

What then should be the scope of public administration? Should it be principally limited

to the administration of the government bureaucracy? Or should its ibjectives be the

total administration of the administrative machinery of government?

For Robert Presthus:

Public administration is concerned with the institutional framework of

government, its socio-economic and political milieu and he behavior of the individuals

who man the bureaucratic machine.

A further look at public administration shows that it should also concern with the

formulation of public policies and the implementation of government programs.

Moreover, Presthus points out that public administration is “that aspect of

administration occurring under the formal aegis of government at every level.” If it is

only an aspect of administration then what is administration?

Barry M. Richman and Melvyn Copen define administration as follows:

Administration is basically an organizational process concerned with the

implementation of objectives and plans and internal operating efficiency. It often

connotes bureaucratic structure and behavior, relatively routine decision-making and

maintenance of the internal status quo.

Moreover administration is not limited to large organizations. As it is White consider it as

applicable to all kinds of group effort.

Administration is a process common to all group effort, public or private, civil or

military, large scale or small scale. It is process at work in a department store, a bank, a

university or high school, a railroad, a hotel, or a city government.

In this view, Brooks Adams attaches administration to coordination. He says:

Administration is the capacity of coordination many and often confliction social

energies in a single organism so adroitly that they shall operate as a unity. This

presupposes the power of recognizing a series of relation between numerous special

social interests, with all of which no man can be intimately acquainted. Probably no very

highly specialized class can be strong in this intellectual quality because of the

intellectual isolation incident to specialization; and yet administration or generalization is

not only the faculty upon which social stability rests but is possibly the highest faculty of

the human mind.

The capacity of government to perform its functions however, rests with its public

administration being attuned to the realities of the times. On the other hand the capacity

of public administration ot perform its functions for the people can be enhanced if there

is public awareness of why and how these functions are being performed. Also such

functions will be achieved only if government personnel respond to their respective

responsibilities wih the kind of defecation and loyalty required by the nature of public

administration as public service.

By the nature of its functions the government should be responsive to the needs

of both the nation as a whole and the people as individuals. It should take if necessary a

gradual and pragmatic manner of action in responding to such needs. Public

administration in carrying out public policies brings the different administrative structures

of government into a single organ of administration. In doing so it means its adherence

to such public policies and accepted management principles and practices prevailing at

that time.

At this point is necessary that government be distinguished from administration

and administrative services. Says Primo L. Tongko:

The term “government” embraces the totality of all institutions through which the

state carries out its will. “Administration” refers to the aggregate of those persons in

whose hands the reins of the government are placed for the time being while

“administrative services” refers to the aggregate of government agencies that are

necessary to carry on government routine work. These agencies perform the ordinary

scientific, and technical aspects of the machinery of the government that are necessary

to carry on its day-to-day functions.

Considering the functions of government and the administrative organizations

formed to attain them the task of public administration is a very complicated one as

compared to that of business administration. Public administration requires a lot of

coordination problem-solving and decision-making activity.

In this situation therefore it is certainly difficult to define public administration in one

sentence or one paragraph definition. Dwight Waldo considers the effect of such

definition in this way:

The immediate effect of all one-sentence or one-paragraph definition of public

administration is mental paralysis rather than enlightenment and stimulation. This is

because a serious definition of the term inevitably contains several abstract words or

phrases. In short compass these abstract words and phrases can be explained only by

other abstract words and phrases and in the process the reality and importance of it

become fogged and lost.

Other social scientist share the view of Waldo. They presented in the form of a brief

summary the constitution of the definition in this manner:

Public administration:

1. Is cooperative group effort in a public setting

2. Covers all three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial and ther

interrelationship

3. Has an important role in the formulation of public policy and is thus a part the

political process

4. Is different in significant ways from private administration

Finally public administration is a dynamic art which is gradually being developed as a

science. This matter will be discussed more in detail later on in this chapter.

What is management?

One way of looking at management is through people who compose the

organization. In this manner it may be considered as the people responsible for the

actions in the organization. Management is the planning, deciding or exercising of

control and supervision on some functions of the organization.

Ralph Currier Daves and Alan C. Filley look at management at a different angle.

They say it is “the function of executive leadership.”

Meanwhile looking at management in a wider perspective, Peter F. Drucker says:

Management which is the organ of society specifically charged with making

resources productive that is with the responsibility for organized economic advance.

Harold Kootz and Cyril O’Donnell have, suggested that “the field of management be

defined in the light of the able and discerning manager’s frame of reference because

theoretical science unrelated to the practical art it is designed to serve is unlikely t be

productive. They say further:

In defining the field of management, care must be taken to distinguish between

tools and content. Thus, mathematics, operations research, accounting, economic

theory, sociometrist, and psychometrics, to mention a few are tools of its content. This is

not to say that these fields are unimportant to the study and practice of management as

important contributions have been made from them. Nor does it mean that they may not

further push back the frontiers of knowledge of management. But they should not be

confused with the basic content of the management field.

The term manager refers to either a person or position. As a person, it refers to

“someone who occupies a position or someone who performs a job.” As a position, it

refers to “the manager’s organizational superiority in the hierarchy of authority.”

Is public administration an art or science?

Art as defined by Perfecto S. Sison, is “proficiency in the practical applicate of

knowledge acquired through study, experience, or observation.” It is also the use of

talent for creative work.

Several social scientist support the view that public administration is an art. White

says:

The art of administration is the direction, coordination, and control of many

persons to achieve some purpose of objective. It is a dynamic art, taking the human and

physical resources available in a system of administration and bending them to the

achievement of some required goal. It is the central over-all disposition of forces,

bringing into focus and consistency of action elements often widely dispersed. It is an

art that pervades all levels of organization, binding together the may professions, crafts,

and specialists whose contributions although equally necessary are not those of

management.

Other social scientist consider public administration as a science.

“A science,” says Sison, “is the systematic accumulation of facts, their analyst and

interpretation and their uses t arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.”

According to Avery Leiserson and Fritz Morstin Marx:

A science of administration would be a body of formal statements describing

invariant relationship between measurable objects, units, or elements. Unquestionably,

administrative research has produced definite precepts and hypotheses that are

applicable to concrete situation. But what administrators visualize as particularly

valuable goes beyond that. They are interested in the techniques of systematizing the

process of securing and sifting relevant information so that the factors involved in

arriving at a policy decision can be stated and the consequences of alternatives can be

analyzed and balanced.

As early as the 1920s, F.W. Willoughby admitted that there are certain fundamental

principles in public administration that are of general application analogous to those

characterizing any sciences.

In the 1940s, Herbert A. Simon, Donald W. Smithburg and Victor A. Thompson

made a new approach to public administration as a science. They considered it as a

science of human interaction that is susceptible to objective investigation and analysis

without reference to value judgment. However, Robert A. Dahl is skeptical about the

approach.

Presthus views public administration “as the art and science of designing and

carrying out public policy.”

Majority of the social scientists view that public administration is not yet a

science, but to some extent it is scientific. In the process of making decisions for

instance public administration uses scientific techniques.

As Arsenio P. Talingdan says:

The question as to whether public administration is a science or not is as open

when it was frist raised. However it may in the future become more and more scientific.

One might even say that further scientific truths on human behavior and interaction will
be established. In many other fields scientists will provide facts for the public

administrator’s use. But the public administrator will always be an artisan, making value

judgements on the basis of these scientific truths, even though he may also be required

to be a scientist.

While public administration possesses conformities analogous to the developed

sciences, it is more aof an art until its principles were empirically tested and verified to

be universal application. It is more responsible for the attainment of organizational

objectives through execution of work done by the application of human resources. It is,

indeed the art of working with people.

Public administration vs Private or Business administration

“Although it varies in forms and objects and although the administration of public

and private affairs differs at many points,” says White, “there is similarity if not identity,

in process wherever observed.”

Speaking in the same vein two American authors conclude:

Any definition of public administration must deal with how it is similar to or different from

private administration. The similarities are great for administration as process is by no

means limited to the private sector.

The differences between public administration and private administration are

summarized. As thus shown public administration is a broad field of administration,

while private administration is limited one.

Say Nigro and Nigro:

Government is different also in that no private company can equal it in size and

diversity of activities.

The two American authors added: “Even more important is the great scope of

government activities, affecting the entire economic and social structure of the country.”

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

1. Broad field of administration

2. Official actions are based on public trust carrying legal accountability

3. Relatively routine decision – making procedure

4. Maintenance of internal status quo

5. Actuations subject to public criticism

6. Government corporations restricted by requirements of fiscal accountability foreign to

corporate device.

PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION

1. Limited field of administration

2. Not necessarily based on public trust limited legal accountability

3. Unlimited in decision – making process

4. Dynamic entrepreneurship

5. Not normally subjected to public criticism

6. No such restrictions

Figure 1. Difference between Public Administration and Private Administration

The official actions of public administrators are based on public trust carrying

legal accountability. Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of

the Philippines provides that:

Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be

accountable to the people serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and

efficiency act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Any government office is a trust for it is created for the sole purpose of affection the

ends for which it has been established, which is the common good and not for the profit,

honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men. The contrary is true to

private administration.

Service to the people is not however limited to those in the government service.

While everyone is entitled to serve his people in the best way he can, those in the public

service are given greater opportunity to do so.

Former Senate President Gil J. Puyat wrote on August 30, 1979 the following message

in his notes:

To be given the opportunity to serve the people is indeed a priceless gift that a

country can give a citizen. For a citizen who is given this opportunity and who would

serve less than his very best in dedication and performance indeed has committed or is

committing an act of apostasy.

Summary

People form organizations to accomplish goals which they could not achieve as

individuals. One such organization is the government. Public administration has been

defined in various ways. But no condensed definition can encompass all the

characteristic of public administration. It can only be presented in the form of a brief

summary.

Similarly management is used in different ways. As such a great deal of

confusion has arisen but it should be defined in accordance with the manager’s frame of

reference.

It seems to be the consensus of social scientists that public administration is

more of an art, the art of working with people. Although public administration and private

administration differ in many points, there is a similarity if not identity in process

wherever observed.

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN MODERN SOCIETY

In this era of frenzied efforts toward purposeful nation-building, the prime

objective of emerging or developing countries as well as the revitalizing old states is to

adapt to existing circumstances and influences. Their common problem is to weave

their new – found form of organization or administrative structure into a strong

nationhood.

The common desire therefore, is for a more satisfying structure for a revitalized

national existence. Manifestly efforts are being extended toward increasing the range of
functions for which public administrator must be responsible. Many countries tend to

enlarge responsibility to plan and carry out activities aimed to develop their public

administration that transcends the limits of self – interest to realize the fuller significance

of public service within the context of real national aspirations.

This augurs well for the achievement of national goals and objectives for

development. Unless an effective system of public administration exists in the

government the national aspiration will not thrive.

A government survives when it provides good public administration. Public

administration is good when the people find in the government the full expression of

popular will. Service to the people is the basic foundation of government, of which public

administration is an essential tool. The government must not only make known its

auctions to meet the people’s essential needs and desires but it must also make the

people understand its ways. This can only be possible if lines of communication are

kept open between the government and the various sectors of society.

The effort is a continuing process which must never lag. No one at the helm of

government can afford to dispense with this requirement if he wants it to be responsive

to the needs of the times. The machinery of government must at all times be attuned to

implement the government’s programs for the welfare of the people, and be fully

understood by the people in this effort. The people as a result will support and

cooperate in attaining the objectives of the different programs being undertaken by the

government. Thus, the people are expected to five their personal loyalty, faith and

confidence in the government which they need to succeed.

The government should exert considerable effort in reaching out to the people.

This can be attained by disseminating information about the government and, at the

same time determining the people’s need, sentiments, and attitudes toward the

government. Unfortunately, however the government often becomes so thoroughly

enmeshed in activity for its own sake that it often loses sight of its real goals.

The government calls on public administration for the utilization of this important

aspect of its work. Hence the role of public administration in society, since the dawn of

organized government, revolves around the concept of public services. Because of this

there is a need to explore the nature of its commitment in contemporary society,

particularly the Philippine society, which is at a stage where the pace of its social and

economic development is so rapid that in the formulation of its national policies it should

be synchronized with world events.

In this chapter the following subjects will be discussed:

1. The New Role of Public Administration

2. Executive Leadership’s Role of Public Administration

3. Public Administration’s Role in Designing Policy

The new role of public administration

Since the 1940’s the government has increasingly involved itself in national

development particularly in its economic and social spheres as it expands form its

traditional functions of safeguarding the country’s national security and providing

essential public facilities and services. Consequently it expands not only its machinery
but also the main thrust of public administration from the attainment of economy and

efficiency in the public service to that of serving as change agent in the task of nation –

building.

In its new role as change agent it seems to have significantly contributed to the

shaping of both the aspirations and expectations of the people in its efforts to improve

their quality of life. However in many instances, the increased resources of the

government are not proportioned to the increasing citizens’ demands for government

service. This state of government affairs, therefore, ushered in a dilemma for public

administrators in their effort to narrow down or bridge the gap between the fast

changing role of public administration and its almost static administrative ethos and

structure.

Richard A. Jonhson, Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig express the

common dilemma of the administrators as follows:

The organization takes many of its value from the broader socio – cultural

environment. A basic premise is that the organization as a sub – system of society must

accomplish certain goals which are determined by the broader system. The organization

performs a function for the society and if it is to be successful in receiving inputs, it must

conform to social requirements.

An editorial of a Philippine daily newspaper explains the situation in this manner:

It is almost inconceivable that anybody or any group that is a product of that

particular culture can rise to a position of power and oppose the values of the society.

For in that case it is no less than a foreign body inserted in the organism.
Says professor of public administration Arsenio P. Talingdan:

The end of public administration are the ultimate objectives of the State itself.

Public administration expands with the development of public interests. As the

administrative system grows and becomes more complex the role of public

administration expands. The public service is one of the principal pivots where people

try to attain the good life.

These are not empty words. History has confirmed this statement. It is essential,

therefore that public administration learn from their practical experiences in the past. In

here there is truth in the saying: “What we sow today will sprout tomorrow.”

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, in its concept of national economy and

patrimony provides in Section 10 of Article XII that:

The state shall regulate or prohibit private monopolies when the public interests

si requires. No combinations in restraint of trade ir unfair competition shall be allowed.

Carrying out such policy of the State is the responsibility of public administration.

Thus empowered by the laws of the land public administration regulates the acquisition,

ownership use enjoyment and disposition of private property and to diffuse equitably

both the ownership and profits of property. So private and individual activities of the

people are controlled to make them converge harmoniously in the development of a

national life which may be considered for the common good of the people.

Executive leadership’s role of public administration

Theoretically a public administrator is not expected to have any part in policy

decisions. Since he belong to the civil service system, he is expected not to influence or

intervene in the process of making the original decision. He is not expected to make the

subsequent decision to carry it out either. But because of his technical knowledge,

practical experience, and available resources at his command, politicians have to call

upon him in the enactment of appropriate legislation. In fact, he has to fill the gap in

solving the administrative problems of policy – implementation by involving himself in its

policy – formulation.

A simple truth, which is essential for the general process of policy formulation,

should be understood and accepted. The politicians need information which only the

vast and practical experience of public administrators can adequately supply. As it is

public administrators in carrying on the routine operations of the business of

government become administrative experts. They are called upon to furnish much of the

advice upon which public policy is shaped, thereby influencing its final form and

substance.

In another situation, the role of public administration is not only to implement the policy

but to give meaning to it by affecting economic and social behavior of which results

could be achieved by its ouwn operations. While those engaged in public administration

do not in themselves establish the basic policies they execute, they give effect to such

policy. This policy defines the means and ends of government action.

As Presthus points out:

The size and complexity of governmental institutions in all but the most limited

levels of public activity mitigate against purity in policy formulating and policy –

implementing roles.

In fact with society’s increased demands for the government’s services and subsidies,

public administration expanded its administrative machinery to satisfy them.

As society progresses, it creates new needs and each one of them provides the

government not only additional source of power but also more functions. Hence, it

assures the permanency of public administration for it compelled the government to

take in continuing responsibilities which of course can be fulfilled only through continuity

of its operations.

The multi – function of government can best be understood by studying the

following classifications suggested by Robert Maclver and Charles Page:

1. Functions peculiar to the state:

a. Maintenance of order

b. Attainment of justice

c. Protection of a system of property right

d. Formation of administrative and foreign policies

2. Functions for which the state is well – adapted:

a. Conservation of naturel resources

b. Control of monopoly

c. The maintenance of public services such as parks, play grounds, schools

and museums
d. Preservation of health

3. Functions for which the state is ill – adapted

These will vary with the conditions, but in general they are functions which do

not serve the need of the entire community such as religion and literary and

artistic production and evaluation.

4. Functions which the state is incapable of performing:

a. Control of people’s opinions

b. Regulation of morality

Clearly, public administration has become inextricably interwoven into every

aspect of human life. Presthus put it in this way:

The effect of such growth upon bureaucracy’s role is immediate and

unprecedented, mainly because of the integral role it necessarily assumes in designing

and carrying assumes in designing and carrying out new and expanding programs. In a

very real sense the roles of both government and the bureaucracy became so complex,

technical, and pervasive that it was virtually impossible to maintain the kind of

democratic control and the nice dichotomy between policy and ministration posited in an

earlier and simpler era.

It is frequently stated nowadays, therefore, that the role of public administration

needs review and reshaping. It should not only be flexible, realistic, and pragmatic, but

by its very nature it should continuously evolve and adapt itself to current developments

if circumstances so require.

In fact, Presthus observes the emerging role of public administration as follows:

Even though major policy matters tend to originate elsewhere, bureaucracy

sometimes plays a critical role in initiating policy, mainly because of its technical

knowledge. Bureaucracy’s close liaisons with major interest groups also enable it to

play a role in recommending and carrying out public policies. Much of this influence

arises because of bureaucracy’s operational role in carrying put such policy: if changes

are required in ongoing programs, they are among the first to know.

Despite the size and scope of bureaucratic influence and the sophisticated technology

at bureaucracy’s command, its policy-making function is limited. As pointed out by

Presthus himself:

It is often inaccurate to conceive of policy-making as a highly rational process,

typically characterized by foresight and a nice consideration of most alternatives.

Instead much of the higher official’s time is spent shifting from one contingency to

another. He does not usually control his agenda in the way required for systematic

planning and control. More often he is concerned with post hoc reconciliations of

unexpected events.

Of course, continuity in policy making is essential for effective public

administration. Though essential however continuity in political decision does not

always assure the existence of democratic institutions.

National-level politic is an extension of local-level politics. The latter is the

microcosm of the former. However, this continuity in a political culture is not reflected

only in societies upholding democratic institutions, but are also true in other systems
classified under what many call “democratic” from. But of what use is a policy? As

defined by Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell:

Policy is a projected program of goal values and practices; policy process is the

formulation, and application of identifications, demands, and expectations concerning

the future interpersonal relations to self.

Since a policy is an attempt to establish a general rule, in giving it effect the

administration may carry it into broader diversity of concrete situations as they perceive

it. In giving specific applications to the policy, public administration can take into account

the numerous variables of different conditions. Because of this flexibility, it can obtain

compliance in varying situations without either jeopardizing the consistency of general

rule or making the general rule a crushing force incapable of appropriate differentialities.

Public administration present itself as a process of fitting as a means of giving

policy conciseness, expressing in a highly diversified society. For this purpose it needs

direction. It aims at coherence without being a helpless motion of precedent and

operating convenience. It must keep itself open to the need for innovation and constant

improvement.

Public Administration’s Role in Designing Policy

Along with its role in legislative leadership, the bureaucracy of public

administration plays the major role in a given policy issue when a vacuum exists in the

area.

As Peter B. Natchez and Irvia Bupp say:

Priorities are established by aggressive entrepreneurs (appointed officials) at the

operating levels of government, because energetic division directors successfully build

political support to withstand continuous attacks upon a program’s resource base by

competing claims.

Policy-making is “the prerogative of the political or elected actors in government.”

As pointed out by Avery Leicerson and Fritz Morstein Marx:

The primary organ or policy sanction is the legislature. In the main, it lays down

policy in general terms. For purpose of effective government such general policy is

usually done by administrative policy formulation as a means of giving more precise

expression to statutory directions addressed to the executive branch.

The public administrator particularly the city administrator, has a dual responsibility.

James M. Banovetz and his colleagues explain it in this manner:

He is responsible on one hand for the provision of effective organizational

leadership: his is the task of running a “taut ship” in directing the programs and workers

under his supervision. He is responsible, on the other hand to the public which he

serves: as a government employee, he is required to act in a manner which meets

common expectations regarding responsive and responsible government.

This responsibility to the public involves two components imbuing the

organization with the spirit of service in the public interest and embodying in all actions

an interpretation of the public will. Neither of course is it an easy task.

The merging role of the public administrator due to the ever-changing conditions and

rising expectations of the citizenry is becoming more difficult. His problems concerning

not only the physical features of the place but also the social and psychological

conditions of its inhabitants as well are “frustratingly complex, divisive and challenging.”

As David M. Welborn points out:

Even so these expectations have generally been defined imprecisely meaning

that the contours of the manager’s role have traditionally become ambiguous.

In the process of nation-building, some nations adopted the authoritarian form of

government of the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Editorial writer and columnist Apolonio Batalla points out that:

Some from of authoritarianism exists in all the members of the group, and if we

look a bit beyond the bloc we will see that it is only Japan that does not have an

authoritarian government.

To be sre a large measure of democracy is observed in the ASEAN countries.

But in Indonesia, the military are everywhere even in the office of the government that

oversees the work of the press. And in Malaysia and Singapore, the governments

reserve for themselves that power of controlling the political situation through internal

security acts.

Columnist Batalla adds:

If it is true that authoritarianism breeds some degree of political instability, the

authoritarianism in ASEAN has not become a problem in that respect.

On the other hand, in the years of the authoritarian regimes ASEAN has been

cited for its fairly rapid economic growth and political stability. Of all the countries in

ASEAN the Philippines has had the most extensive experience in republicanism and

that therefore, it is not typically ASEAN. Hence it is capable of shucking off an

authoritarian from of government for all time.

It depends on the people. By and large the population values the form of

government outlined in the Constitution but it has also the propensity for electing corrupt

officials.

Regardless of the form of government, public administration is an essential part of it. It

is through public administration that rthe people transact their business with the

government. Thus the state of public administration in the ASEAN Region, if not in the

Philippines in general, should be the subject of much deliberation.

The character, nature and scope of public administration are constantly

changing. On this, Dell Gillette Hitchner and William Henry Harbold point out that:

The extend organization and procedure of public administration itself are closely

influenced by the nature of the objectives being pursued and the social conditions

prevailing. Since these are not constant, neither are the forms of administration.

In designing legislation for the country the role of public administration depends

primarily on the nature of the objectives being pursued and the social conditions

prevailing at that time. In fact it could be pointed out that:

The range of governmental of governmental activities and their importance to the

community is not static but varies with the aspirations of men and the conditions within

which they live.

Speaking of responsibility, Hitchner and Harbold state that:

Responsibility is a rather ambiguous word and consequently, methods which

have been used and advocated to ensure the responsibility of public officials have been

various and rarely completely satisfactory, when we say that a person is responsible we

may mean that he is trustworthy or that he is technically competent. We may also mean

that he is answerable to someone else. All these senses of the term are important in

securing responsible government, although it is evident that conflicts may develop

between them the conscience or technical knowledge of an official may compel him to

reject that instructions of those to whom between these diverse techniques remains

uncertain of course but through continuing pragmatic adjustments they have in most

instance been kept in reasonable balance.

Twenty-five years ago, some American political scientists stress that public

administration is a “professional bureaucracy.” For them bureaucracy is “often used

derogatorily, but properly means only a large scale organization of appointed officials,

systematically interrelated in the realization of complex purposes.”

Against such background of historical development of public administration, a set

of questions on the role of public administration in modern society will emerge in the

minds of both the politicians and public administrators:

1. How do the government cope with the public service requirements of the

predominantly countryside population?

2. How can the educational system and the government bridge the gap between

their efforts for human resources development and the citizen’s demands on

their public administration structures?

3. How can the government sustain its efforts of nation-building without building

its indigenous government resources of which public administration is a vital

part?

The answers to the questions will determine the future direction and scope of the role of

public administration in the society for which it was designed to serve:

Summary

The prime objective of emerging or developing countries, as well as of the

revitalizing old states, is to reinforce themselves so as to be adaptable to existing

circumstance and influence. To attain this situation and effective system of public

administration is imperative.

The survival of government depends primarily on its public administration, an

essential tool of government. Its role in society regardless of time reviolves around the

concept of public service.

In its new role as change agent public administration significantly contributes in

shaping both the aspirations and expectations of the people in its efforts to improve their

quality of life.
Carrying out the policy of the state is the responsibility of public administration.

Hence, the ends of public administration are the ultimate objectives of the state itself.

Moreover public administration has become inextricably interwoven into evey

aspect of human life. As such its emerging role is becoming more difficult. Its character,

structure, nature and scope are constantly changing.

Finally the role of public administration in designing the country’s policies

depends primarily on the nature of the objectives being pursued and the social

conditions prevailing at the moment.

THE NATURE OF BUREAUCRACY

Bureaucracy is “a type of organization designed to accomplish large-scale

administration task by systematically coordinating the work of many individuals.”

German sociologist Max Weber was the first scholar to describe the

characteristics of bureaucracy systematically. He was also the first to analyze its role in

an industrial society. In weber’s view bureaucracy is the best form of organization. As

an organization, it substitutes a rulee of law for a rule base on the whims of those who

happen to govern. In the latter case the superiors were apt to be moved by “personal

sympathy and favor, by grace and gratitude.”

Over the years bureaucracy has become the dominant form of organization in

modern societies. Yet many of these organizations particularly in the Philippines were

apparently organized by people with little knowledge and understanding of bureaucracy

as well as of its far-reaching implication in the lives of the people.

Very often therefore, bureaucracy is used in a negative manner. As such it fails to

produce the organizational results with adequate efficiency. People cannot be expected

to support and organization which they are not familiar with.

As Peter M. Blau states:

Colloquially the term “bureaucracy” has become an epithet which refers to

inefficiency and red tape in the government but this was not the ordinal meaning and it

is not the way the term will be used.

Since bureaucracy is misunderstood and misinterpreted by many people it is essential

to know and understand its nature. In this chapter therefore the following subjects will

be discussed to attain a clearer understanding of the nature of bureaucracy:

1. Basic Concepts of Bureaucracy

2. Development of Bureaucratic Organizations

3. Characteristics of Bureaucracy

4. Characteristics of Philippine Bureaucracy

5. Philippine Bureaucratic Behavior

Basic concepts of bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is “a specific form of social organization for administrative purposes.”

Speaking in the same vein, Marshall E. Dimock states:

Bureaucracy is reflected in certain specific forms of organizational behavior;

hierarchy, subdivision specialization fixed ways of doing things and professionalization.

Moreover, bureaucracy is “that type of hierarchical organization which is designed

rationally to coordinate the work of many individuals in pursuit of large-scale

administrative tasks.”

As Dalton E. McFarland says:

In bureaucratically organized systems, authentic authority, which binds the

various levels together, originates at the top and passes through the organizations as

managers delegate it downward.

Development of bureaucratic organizations

Observance of the classical principles of organization produce bureaucracy. However it

requires certain conditions for its development.

As William G. Scott and Terence R. Mitchell say:

A civilization must reach a certain degree of maturity before bureaucracies

emerge to exert a significant influence on the life patterns pf people in a society. The

institutions in society must be differentiated in terms of the role they play. Differentiation

takes place along functional lines; for example the separation of the economic functions

form the family. In this sense the family is no longer the locus of the production of

goods and services. Instead such activities are centralized in specialized institutions.

When Max Weber defined bureaucracy he saw it as the most efficient form of

organization arising out of the needs of an industrialized society for the efferctive

administration of its large and complex organizations.

As Weber points out:

Experience tends universally to show that the purely bureaucratic type of

administrative organization that is the monocratic variety point of view capable of

attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense formally the most rational

known means of carrying out imperative control over human beings. It is superior to any

other form in precision in stability in the stringency of its discipline and in its reliability. It

thus makes possible a particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of

the organization and for those acting in relation to it. It is finally superior bioth in

intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operation, and is formally capable of

application to all kinds of administrative task.

The increasing complex organization can be simplified by breaking down its structure

into manageable parts. Hence as an alternative to the prevailing conditions, Weber

caused the institutionalization of bureaucracy.

In advocating bureaucracy, Weber again states:

The development of the modern form of the organization of corporate groups in

all fields is nothing less than identical with the development and continued spread of

bureaucratic administration. This is true of church and state of armies’ political parties,

economic enterprises, organizations to promote all kinds of causes, private

associations, clubs, and many others. The development is to take the most striking case

the most crucial phenomenon of the modern Western state. The whole pattern of

everyday life is cut to fit this framework. For the needs of mass administration today it is

completely indispensable. The choice is only that between bureaucracy and dilettantism

in the field of administration.

Weber’s view was supported by Socorro S. Espiritu, a Filipino sociologist when she

said:

Bureaucratic structures in institutions are not necessarily confined to political

organizations they tend to develop wherever it is necessary to coordinate the activities

of many people. Bureaucracy offers both an efficient mechanism for reaching

institutional goals and the danger of allowing the mechanism to appear more important

than the service it is supposed to perform.

In an article, S.N, Eisentadt discusses the condition with a society which the framework

for the development of bureaucratic organization applies.

As Scott and Mitchell argue:

The society as a whole must be in a position to supply the resources for support

of bureaucratic organizations. As such society is expected to underwrite bureaucratic

activities. Theoretically therefore the bureaucracy has to pursue socially acceptable

goals.

Characteristics of bureaucracy

Although Weber studied mainly government institutions to extract the essential

elements of his concept of bureaucracy, it appears that several of its principal

characteristics could be found in any organization as liong as they had the following

features:

1. Large and complex organization as measured by the number of people it

employed;
2. Majority of those employed were performing semi-skilled and unskilled works

3. Relatively simple mas production technology is applied and

4. Relatively simple product is produced.

By simplifying its complex organizational structures it is expected that bureaucracy will

attain efficiency, economy, and greater reliability for its performance. The following

characteristic of an organization could be used for the analysis of a bureaucracy:

1. Positions and offices are clearly defined. In principle all positions and offices

exist independently of the incumbent. The incumbent perform their roles

during official hours according to contract and are personally free to do as

they wish after such hours.

2. The hierarchical arrangement of authority, rights, and obligations are

specifically drawn. Levels of superordination and subordination with their

corresponding salaries and other privileges and responsibilities are defined.

Communication through channels or protocol and other procedures are highly

regularized. Requirements are set up for some degree of coordination and

integration above divergent individual views with regard to the pursuit of the

social organization’s common goals and objectives.

3. The personnel are selected on the basis of technical or professional

qualifications. Personnel are chosen on the basis of competence through

competitive examinations and are expected to perform accordingly.

4. There are defined rules governing official behavior. There is maximum

standardization of action so as to minimize personal prejudice, interest,

preference, and subservience. Subordinates are uniformly protected from any

possible unjustified treatment by their superiors. Employees as a whole are

bound to carry out their roles accordingly and to maintain ingroup feelings to

protect their social organization from outsiders.

5. Security of tenure and the pursuit of a career with promotion in the hierarchy

are assured. Promotions based on seniority and merit, though slow, occur

periodically to maintain morale and competent performance. Tenure is secure

as long as there is no gross misconduct in the performance of one’s role in

office.

From his “ideal type” model of bureaucracy, Weber identified two preeminent

characteristic in all formal organizations. These are: division of labor and centralization

of authority.

In the 1930s, James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, Amerocan social scientists

added coordination as the “modern principle” but only because they understood that

without it organizations could not function rationally in the face of continuous

specialization.

Moreover, as McFarland says:

The characteristics of bureaucracy are present in all large organizations which fulfill vital

functions efficiently.

However the structural characteristics of an organization “are determined largely

by environmental values, demands, responses, and limitations.

On this matter, Robert Presthus adds:

They seek to determine the channels through which external social inputs are

evaluated and acted upon within an organization and frequently stress, with

considerable normative zeal, the need for greater organizational sensitivity to

noninstitutional social variables.

“Ironically.” Presthus points out “much less attention has been paid to the most

pervasive of all environmental factors – culture.”

Richard H. Hall suggest that the degree of bureaucratization can be determined

by measuring the following dimensions or key elements of the “ideal – type”

bureaucracy of Weber:

1. A division of labor based upon functional specialization

2. A well – defined hierarchy of authority

3. A system of rule covering the rights and duties of positional incumbents

4. A system of procedures for dealing with work situations

5. Impersonality of interpersonal relations, and

6. Promotion and selection for employment based upon technical competence.

As a social organization, bureaucracy has strong and weak points. As such Warren G.

Bennis believes that bureaucracy as described by Weber must change significantly if it

is to continue as a function element of modern society. He suggests that a new form of

bureaucratic organization should be formed to meet the change environmental

conditions.

The “old – style” bureaucracy is eminently suitable for managing “the routine and

predictable in human affairs.” As such Scott and Mitchell believe that “there are six
forces at work which are demanding that organizations modify both structure and

climate to cope successfully with the realities of modern environment.”

These forces are:

1. An acceleration in change that requires rapid organizational adaptation.

2. Increasing technological sophistication which lends to the acceleration of

change.

3. Growing organizational complexity which is partially attributable to technology

and partially a result of increasing organizational size.

4. Changing character of the workforce in which more highly educated,

professionally oriented people are going into organizations.

5. A growing expectation of the “new” employee for greater freedom and

discretion at work.

6. More disenchantment with traditional authority with emphasis based on a

decline of command (superior-subordinate) authority and the rise of functional

authority vested in expertise.

Pointing out the weak points of bureaucracy Dale says:

But a bureaucracy has one major fault. It has difficulty in changing its ways,

except very slowly. And because it resists change it does not attract those who can

conceive constructive changes and put them into effect.

“In spite of some negative characteristics.” Espiritu believes that “bureaucracy is

still the only systematized method of carrying the vital task of institutions.”
Moreover there are possible solutions to the problems of bureaucracy. As Felicidad V.

Cordero and Isabel S. Panopio, Filipino sociologists, have written:

The bureaucracy’s congenital defects which arise from its very nature are not,

however, entirely nonremediable. They may be minimized by:

1. Sensitizing prospective employees to the strengthening and weakening

effects of informal relationships in varied social institutions within the

bureaucracy.

2. Recruiting and continuously developing, employees with a deeply ingrained

sense of responsibility and competent standards of performance.

3. Inculcating in future executive and supervisory personnel at all levels the

ability to set up a workable balance between the very rigid and the very lax

types of bureaucracies.

4. Establishing a system of periodically studying the actual operation of the

social organization, identifying its defects and devising expedient means with

which to remove barriers to satisfactory and efficient operations.

Each of the solutions suggested by the Filipino sociologists represents a distinct method

of improving personnel administration in a bureaucratic organization.

However Robert K. Merton says that one consequence of bureaucratic

structuring on the behavior of organization participants is disruption in goal

achievement.

Characteristics of Philippine bureaucracy

In 1955 Onofre D. Corpuz made a study of actual operations of Philippine

bureaucracy, its important characteristics can be summarized as follows:

1. Vulnerability to nepotism. Underlying Philippine bureaucracy are substructure

of small kinship groups. Members of family groups by consanguinity by affinity

and by ritual kinship (or compadrazgo) give top priority to family loyalty.

Within such groupings, all of the feel that they are under obligation to help

each other in a variety of ways.

2. Perpetuation of the spoils system. The passage of the Civil Service Law (C.A.

No. 177, as amended by R.A. No. 114) has set up besides classified service

unclassified and temporary positions which have become convenient

instruments for the practice of nepotism of patronage and of influence

peddling.

3. Apathetic public reaction to bureaucratic misconduct. The almost daily

publication of official misconduct become a part of “normalcy” in the mid-

1950. The people looked upon the phenomenon as a concomitant result of

the increasing complexity of the government a method of political harassment

and a natural way of fulfilling political promises to the unemployed and

underemployed segments of the population.

4. Availability of external peaceful means of correcting bureaucratic

weaknesses. Devices such as constitutional rights and privileges, freedom of

speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, civic action – have

beend used for rectifying the defects and misdeeds of bureaucracy.

5. Survival of historical experience. Centralized in organization, the Philippine

political bureaucracy was administered according to a civil law system which

the Spanish bureaucracy prescribed. Filipinos have used the Spanish political

bureaucracy as the scapegoat for all the weaknesses of the Philippine

political bureaucracy. There are indication however that the weaknesses are

not to be totally and directly attributed to the Spanish government

bureaucracy.

6. Nonspecial typing of bureaucrats. Filipino bureaucrats do not comprise a

clear-cut social class. Other occupational groups do not look upon civil

service “as a special calling reserved to a special class or groups of persons”

with specific habits, skills, motives, interests, prerogatives, values, and

symbols to be consciously pursued, promoted, and protected, respected or

assailed. Thus, Filipino bureaucratic organization consists of persons with

varied family backgrounds, aspirations, educational training, and work

experiences.

7. Lack of independence from politics. Because of the absence of “class

consciousness” and of a feeling of unity on the part of the Filipino bureaucrats

and the stigma of post-World War II ill-repute the Philippine bureaucracy’s

“merit system” was easily subject to attack and tampering by politicians. They

worked through the legislative and executive branches of the national

government.

8. Essential instruments of social change. In spite of its weaknesses the

Philippines bureaucracy’s function in nation building will be as big as

complicated and as demanding as the function of the whole society itself.

Primarily it will have to be a tool for innovations.

Over the years the characteristics of the Philippines bureaucracy had taken significant

changes the development of the human resources of the government is a prerequisite

to the nation’s accelerated socio-economic development program.

In the transformation of the Philippine bureaucracy as an instrument of national

development several issues have arisen such as the following:

1. Bureaucratic resistance to change.

2. Socio-economic political, cultural and ecological constraints to administrative

change.

3. Problems in the transfer of technology and adaptation

Philippine bureaucratic behavior

The Philippine bureaucratic behavior is influenced by its socio-economic

structure, as well by the traditions and cultures of the Filipinos. As pointed out by

Cordero and Panopio:

The behavior of human beings is largely influenced by the structure and function

of the social organizations in which they live. On the other hand the behavior of people

largely influence the behavior of the organizations.

The traditional values that tend to predominate the Philippine setting are those that

center on the family. The family system is the extended bilateral type which is bound by

strong kinship ties.

A considerable importance is given to the compadrazco system, one whiuch ties

people through a religious ceremony. A high respect is also accorded to social status

rather than merit, while a strong emphasis is placed on primary group interest and

relationship. This status oriented behavior is projected in the desire to establish and

association with the elite.

The superordinate role of the elite is further stressed by the fact that in any

community project or political function the elite is always consulted for advice, moral

support or financial contribution before anything can be done. This culture impregnates

the bureaucracy.

Superimposed upon the Weberian bureaucratic model are the conflicting Philippine

value patterns of segmentation, personalist, and reciprocity. The sense of pity (awa)

tends to distort efficiency ratings of subordinates. The heightened sense of self-esteem

(amor-propio) expends much energy on interpersonal maneuverings directed at

maintaining one’s status.