Nature of Public Administration

3.1 Interdisciplinary Nature

PA borrows from:

• Political Science: Theory of state, policy, power, legitimacy
• Management Science: POSDCORB functions, organisational theory
• Law: Statutory authority, administrative law, judicial review
• Economics: Public finance, resource allocation, cost-benefit analysis
• Sociology: Organisational culture, group dynamics, bureaucracy
• Psychology: Leadership, motivation, communication, morale

3.2 Is PA Art or Science?

Science view: PA follows observable patterns and laws (e.g., span of control, unity of command). It uses empirical research, surveys, and case analysis. Gulick and Urwick treated it as a science.

Art view: PA involves judgment, political skill, and creativity. Each administrative situation is unique. Waldo stressed the "art" dimension — "there are no administrative truths analogous to Newton's laws."

Current consensus: PA is both — a social science with regularities but also an art requiring human judgment. It sits in the praxiology tradition — science of effective action.

3.3 Politics–Administration Dichotomy and Its Rejection

Wilson (1887) and Goodnow (1900) argued that politics (value/policy decisions) is separate from administration (execution of policy). This made administration seem a neutral, technical exercise.

Criticisms and rejection:

• Paul Appleby (1945): Administrators make policy at every level; execution involves value choices.
• Robert Dahl (1947): PA cannot be value-free; it embeds ideological choices.
• Herbert Simon (1946): Called POSDCORB "proverbs of administration" — administrative principles often contradict each other (e.g., span of control vs. hierarchy).

Today, the dichotomy is considered a useful normative ideal (separating political from bureaucratic appointments) but not an empirical reality.

---