New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)

New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)

The term “New Public Administration” or New PA may have emerged from the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The conference was the brainchild and inspiration of Dwight Waldo who brought together young public administrators and scholars to discuss important issues and varying perspectives on public administration. The conference created a hullabaloo.

One of its controversies is that it had rejected the classical theories of public administration and instead offered new principles. For instance, Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public Administration,” adds social equity to the classic definition of public administration.

Conventional or classic public administration sought to only answer inquiries on efficiency and effectiveness like: how can the government offer better services with available resources (efficiency) or how can we maintain our level of services while spending less money (economy)? In introducing the principles of New PA, he adds the question: “Does this service enhance social equity?” (Frederickson 1971)

The Minnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional public administration to existing deprivation with an era of fast-paced technological advancement in the backdrop. Frederickson argued that, disparities existed because public administration focused less on social purposes or values of government policies and programs and more on the economy and efficiency of execution.

The value-free and neutral stance of traditional PA has alienated the less privileged and deprived groups in the society. New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated that public administrators should not be neutral; they should be committed to both good management and social equity as values to be achieved.

Social Equity Social Equity—while named the fourth pillar of

public administration by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2005—still struggles to find equal footing with its partners, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As Wooldridge and Gooden (2009) have argued, it is the rare public administrator who has the courage to make social equity the primary goal of policy. The question for this work is, “Can we achieve equity for social equity among the pillars of public administration?”

Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

Conventional or classic values of public administration Efficiency, effectiveness, and economy

New public administration efficiency, effectiveness, and social equity

New PA is “change”

New PA then called for client-oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures, participatory decision-making, decentralized administration and advocate-administrators. (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro 1989) With the above contentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change” and the challenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept change.

Is the New PA relevant?

Pilar (1993) in his article “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration. He argued that New PA is relevant while there is no indigenous model of public administration, the relevance of New PA maybe regarded in terms of their compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the convergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals, purposes, and aspirations of the country.” (Pilar 1993: 145)

The principle of New PA is compatible with the environment of the Philippine PA, although it was conceived during the time that the US was in chaotic and unpredictable environment amidst prosperity. Such situation is different in the Philippines considering that not only it grappled with advancement but it struggled to pull itself out of poverty which is a major concern of the government up to this date.

New PA created the need to stimulate change: meeting the needs of the society through the government’s development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and justice. It must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised by New PA are also embedded in our second order question, “for whom is PA?” It is indeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners of public administration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, who is the “public” in public administration?

Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

It is argued here that social equity can be simplified to maintaining or creating equality of opportunity

in the provision of public services and that it can take three different forms in public administration:

1. Simple fairness and equal treatment 2. Distribution of resources to reduce inequalities in

universal programs and services 3. Redistribution of resources to level the playing

field or increase equality of opportunity through targeted programs

Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

Social equity among the values of public administration

has gained ground in acceptance since the first Minnowbrook conference. But over 40 years later, it still struggles to gain traction as an equal among its partners economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Despite other symposia in the Journal of Public Affairs Education, the work of the Standing Panel on Social Equity in NAPA and its annual Social Equity Leadership Conference, and the establishment of a Democracy and Social Justice Section in the American Society for Public Administration, the field of public administration has not fully accepted the role of social equity in public administration. In part, this is due to the lack of clear definitions and measures for social equity.

Kristen Norman-Major (2006)

Alex Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez Is there a Philippine Public Administration or Better Still, for whom is Public Administration? UP NCPAG June, 2008

Kristen Norman-Major (2006) Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity in Public Administration?

Hamline University. JPAE 17(2), 233–252

Reference: