Democracy and Public Administration

Richard C Box

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317473206
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Économie
• Subtopic: Économie de l'environnement

The true measure of the successful practice of public service is its ability to remain faithful to the tenets of democratic society. This introductory text links the practice of public administration to the core concepts of American democracy. It covers the nuts and bolts of public administration in the context of "delivering democracy" in public service - providing what the public really wants as opposed to what self-serving bureaucracies may call for. Chapters in "Democracy and Public Administration" discuss the functional topics covered in other texts, but from the perspective of this democratic ideal. Each chapter is written by an expert in the area, and summarizes previous research in the area, presents the author's research and thought, and offers ways in which practitioners can apply the concepts discussed to their daily work.

1

Democracy and Public Service

Mary R. Hamilton

That public service in a democracy is a paradox has been and continues to be a central issue in public administration. Democracies cannot survive without a strong, technically competent, effective, efficient, and responsive public service, but the existence of such a public service contradicts the democratic notion of government by the people. Even in a representative democracy, the contradiction applies since the public service is three steps removed from the people (Mosher, 1982, p. 5). It is fair to say that public service and democracy are both antithetical and complementary (Berkley & Rouse, 2004, p. 99).

There is also no generally accepted theory or model of public administration for American democratic government. Neither the United States Constitution nor other documents related to the founding of the nation provide a model for an administrative component in government. The Constitution specifies a goal of providing for the common defense and producing other public goods, but it says little or nothing about contemporary issues such as providing for the social, economic, and physical well-being of the populace (Ingraham & Rosenbloom, 1990, pp. 211–212).

Scholars have proposed models and/or theories of the appropriate role of public administration in American representative democracy. (Examples include: Ostrom, 1987; Price, 1983; Rohr, 1986; Stillman, 1990.) These proposed theories/models provide very different answers to the question of the role of public administration in the American system, and none has achieved the status of being accepted across the fields of public administration, political science, and/or public policy.

The paradox and lack of a generally accepted administrative model for the public service in our democracy create a set of dilemmas for citizens, elected officials, and public administrators. All have to be concerned with the need for balance between a strong public service and a strong nation based on democratic principles.

Given its centrality as an issue for scholars and practitioners alike, the democracy-public service paradox has been studied extensively. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the paradox, briefly explore the resulting body of literature, and summarize suggested approaches to ensuring that public service supports democratic values and principles while also effectively and efficiently administering public organizations and programs.

In the first section of the chapter, I describe the changes in the relationship between public service and democracy in the United States over time and with differing dominant political perspectives. Second, I explore the paradox—the antithetical and complementary aspects of the relationship between public service and democracy—and argue that a strong but circumscribed public service is critical to a healthy, stable democracy. Third, I describe how a public service can be developed that promotes and supports democratic principles and values. Finally, I summarize the roles and responsibilities that American citizens and elected officials have come to expect of public administrators in a democracy.

Differing Perspectives on the Relationship of Public Service and Democracy

The relationship between public service and democracy in the United States has changed since the founding of the nation, and it has differed over the years based on which political perspective was dominant at the time. A brief look at the history of public service in the United States shows how the relationship between democracy and public service has developed and changed. Frederick Mosher, in his classic book, Democracy and the Public Service, uses five historical periods to make this point (Mosher, 1982, chap. 3). His categories provide a useful framework for summarizing these historical changes.

Government by Gentlemen, 1789–1829

From the founding of the nation through the early part of the nineteenth century, public service in the United States was dominated by elites—well-educated white men of high social standing. Two categories of personnel made up this first public service: the elites, who were the cabinet members and other high-ranking officials; and the behind-the-scenes workers, who staffed the offices in the capital and across the nation and were largely drawn from the middle and upper-middle classes (Mosher, 1982, pp. 61–64). The elites were highly visible and “exercised significant influence in the making of public policy and had significant responsibility for its execution” (Mosher, 1982, p. 61).

During this period, there was limited citizen participation in politics and ambivalence about the neutrality of public servants. There was also no distinct split between politics and administration. Also during this period, persons in public office were held to high moral standards, and upper-level officials were held in high esteem (Mosher, 1982, pp. 60, 80).

Government by the Common Man, 1829–1883

The second period, from 1829 to 1883, is commonly identified with Jacksonian democracy and the spoils system. The egalitarian ideology that drove the period preached “equal opportunity for public appointment, subject to party loyalty” based on the “doctrine of the simplicity of public work” (Mosher, 1982, p. 65). That doctrine held that government work was simple and could be performed effectively by any person of intelligence (Mosher, 1982, pp. 64–66, 80). The result of applying this doctrine during the nineteenth century was a reduction of the influence of the elites and an increase in the presence of middle- and lower-class people in the public service. However, the ideology also produced a technically less competent public service, widespread corruption, and a decline in the prestige of the public service (Mosher, 1982, pp. 64–66, 81).

Government by the Good, 1883–1906

The late 1800s through the early 1900s was a period when, because of the incompetence, graft, favoritism, and partisanship of the previous period (Stillman, 2000, p. 195), civil service reform was a top priority, so important that some saw it “as a moral imperative” (Mosher, 1982, p. 81). The Pendleton Act, passed in 1883, established the first civil service system in the United States. The system was based on merit, employing competitive examinations for entrance into public service, and promoting political neutrality of public employees “and with it the separation of policy and politics from administration” (Mosher, 1982, p. 81). The system was also “open,” meaning that entry into the public service was “possible at all levels” (Mosher, 1982, p. 81).

Although the Pendleton Act applied to the federal government, state and local governments soon followed suit and established their own civil service systems to combat graft and corruption at their levels. The Pendleton Act, together with the Progressive and Scientific Management movements during this period, gave rise to a number of innovations in the public service, among them city management (Ingraham & Rosenbloom, 1990, p. 213).

Government by the Efficient, 1906–1937

The period from 1906 to 1937 emphasized efficiency in government operations based on scientific management. During this period, efficiency replaced civil service reform as the moral imperative (Mosher, 1982, p. 81). Cities were the first government entities to use scientific management to combat corruption and improve efficiency in their basic systems and services. Bureaus of municipal research grew up to promote and support this movement. Scientific management was also applied to personnel management at all levels of government and resulted in position classification based on systematic standardization of jobs and proliferation of specializations in government (Mosher, 1982, pp. 79–80, 81).

The marriage of public administration and scientific management created problems. During this period, the leaders of public administration were constantly working to reconcile efficiency with democracy (Mosher, 1982, p. 78). Scientific management also reinforced the “separation of politics and policy from the work of administration” (Mosher, 1982, p. 82).

Government by Managers, 1937-present

In the late 1930s, administrative management replaced efficiency as the ideological emphasis, but efficiency continued to be a goal of government. The Great Depression pushed government to assume a proactive role in managing society and the economy. The New Deal and World War II strengthened this new role of government. With the new role came requirements for different skills and competencies in the public service. Administrators now needed to be “politically sensitive and knowledgeable” as well as technically and managerially competent (Mosher, 1982, pp. 83–84).

The Roosevelt administration saw the public service as “an extension of the chief executive” and “viewed federal employees as having legitimate roles in policy making” because they were extensions of the executive and under executive control (Ingraham & Rosenbloom, 1990, p. 213). As a result, support for separating politics/policy and administration waned during this period (Gawthrop, 1998; Ingraham & Rosenbloom, 1990; Mosher, 1982).

The 1970s brought the Watergate scandal and its ripple effects on government. Mosher (1982) cites the negative impact on the public service of the scandal. He says the events raise serious questions for career public administrators; for example: should a government employee “take and execute instructions from above regardless of their wisdom, their legality, their morality? Should the political and hierarchical ethic take precedence over all other norms—of conscience, or of personal or family or professional or religious allegiancies?” (Mosher, 1982, p. 109). These questions continue to challenge public employees.

Concern about these issues led to a major reform of the federal civil service during the late 1970s. The main thrust of the reforms “was management: more flexible management; better motivated management; rewards and penalties for good or bad management; development and selection of better managers; more innovative management” (Mosher, 1982, p. 107).

Since the early 1990s, governments at all levels in the United States have attempted to reduce their workforces and streamline their processes in an effort to reduce costs and improve efficiency. Toward the same objectives governments have also pursued outsourcing and privatization of previously government functions. All of these efforts have shown mixed results, and use of these approaches continues to be controversial. Those who believe in smaller, less intrusive government and government that operates more like business applaud the approaches and find them refreshing and entrepreneurial. Others find the trends produced by these approaches troubling and fear that they are eroding democratic values in the name of efficiency.

The Paradox of a Strong Public Service in a Democracy

In spite of the paradox that public service presents for a democracy and the variety of perspectives on the legitimacy and proper scope of the public service, few would disagree with an observation credited to George Washington, that “the successful administration of government is an object of almost infinite consequence to the present and future happiness of the citizens of the United States.” However, in keeping with the paradox, scholars over the years have expressed concern about the dangers that a strong public service poses for a democracy.

Democracy and Public Service Are Antithetical

There have been many arguments over the years that a strong public service is a threat to democracy. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned in 1835 that as a democratic people become more equal, government “covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform” and by so doing it “hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd (Tocqueville, 1969, p. 692). More recently, scholars have echoed Tocqueville and stressed the risk that government expansion (i.e., expansion of the public service) will result in citizens becoming more and more dependent on government and less and less likely to actively participate in their own governance (Nigro & Richardson, 1987, pp. 102–103).

Mosher (1982) also emphasizes the antithetical nature of public service and democracy. He writes about the public service being three steps removed from direct democracy. This leads Mosher to pose several critical questions for a democracy:

How does one square a permanent civil service—which neither the people by their vote nor their representatives by their appointments can readily replace—with the principle of government “by the people”? (p. 7) … How can a public service so constituted be made to operate in a manner compatible with democracy? How can we be assured that a highly differentiated body of public employees will act in the interests of all the people, will be an instrument of all the people? (p. 5)

Because he sees public service as essential to the functioning of a democracy, Mosher spends the balance of his book discussing approaches to address these questions.

Democracy and Public Service Are Complementary

Although the arguments for being wary of a strong public service are compelling, so are the arguments that a strong public service is vital for a strong democracy.

John Kirlin (2001, p. 142) makes the case in a very inspiring way when he asserts that “public administration is a central part of the grandest of human endeavors—shaping a better future for ourselves and those yet unborn.” He argues that the results of public administration have worldwide impact: “The institutions crafted to achieve human aspirations require administration… . The measure of success is … in its enduring value not only to those in a particular nation, state, or city but worldwide to all who aspire for improved lives.”

A different approach to this argument is represented by the comparative political scientist Ezra Suleiman (2003). Suleiman contends that the public service “is the instrument by which a democracy can strengthen or weaken its legitimacy, [therefore] its absence or inefficiency or politicization can have extraordinary effects on ...