Approaches to the study of public administration

1. BehaviouralApproach System'sApproach EcologicalApproach StructuralFunctionalApproach PublicChoiceApproach ContingencyApproach Approachestothestudyofpublicadministration

2. Behavioralism (or behaviouralism) is an approach in political science, which emerged in the 1930s in the United States. It represents a sharp break from previous political science. This is because it emphasized an objective, quantified approach to explain and predict political behavior.It is associated with the rise of the behavioral sciences, modeled after the natural sciences. This means that behavioralism tries to explain behavior with an unbiased, neutral point of view. Behavioralism seeks to examine the behavior, actions, and acts of individuals– rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries – and groups in different social settings and explain this behavior as it relates to the political system. Behavioralists used strict methodology and empirical research to validate their study as a social science. The behavioralist approach was innovative because it changed the attitude of the purpose of inquiry. It moved toward research that was supported by verifiable facts. BehaviouralApproach

3. During its rise in popularity in the 1960s and 70s, behavioralism challenged the realist and liberal approaches, which the behavioralists called "traditionalism", and other studies of political behavior that was not based on fact. To understand political behavior, behavioralism uses the following methods: sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling and statistical analysis. Behavioralism studies how individuals behave in group positions realistically rather than how they should behave. From the beginning, behavioralism was a political, not a scientific concept. Moreover, since behavioralism is not a research tradition, but a political movement, definitions of behavioralism follow what behavioralists wanted. Therefore, most introductions to the subject emphasize value-free research. This is evidenced by Easton's eight "intellectual foundation stones" of behavioralism:

4. Regularities- The generalization and explanation of regularities. Commitment to Verification - The ability to verify ones generalizations. Techniques - An experimental attitude toward techniques. Quantification - Express results as numbers where possible or meaningful. Values - Keeping ethical assessment and empirical explanations distinct. Systemization - Considering the importance of theory in research. Pure Science - Deferring to pure science rather than applied science. Integration - Integrating social sciences and value According to David Easton, behavioralism sought to be “analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical.” In this, the theory seeks to evaluate political behavior without "introducing any ethical evaluations"; Rodger Beehler cites this as "their insistence on distinguishing between facts and values.“ The approach has come under fire from both conservatives and radicals for the purported value-neutrality. Conservatives see the distinction between values and facts as a way of undermining the possibility of political philosophy.

5. Neal Riemer believes behavioralism dismisses "the task of ethical recommendation" because behavioralists believe "truth or falsity of values (democracy, equality, and freedom, etc.) cannot be established scientifically and are beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry." Christian Bay believed behavioralism was a pseudopolitical science and that it did not represent "genuine" political research. Bay objected to empirical consideration taking precedence over normative and moral examination of politics. Behavioralism initially represented a movement away from "naive empiricism", but has been criticized as an approach has been criticized for "naive scientism". Additionally, radical critics believe that the separation of fact from value makes the empirical study of politics impossible.

6. Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole. In nature, systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement, plants, and animals work together to survive or perish. In organizations, systems consist of people, structures, and processes that work together to make an organization "healthy" or "unhealthy". Systems thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect. System'sApproach

7. In science systems, it is argued that the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the parts in relation to the whole. Standing in contrast to Descartes'sscientific reductionism and philosophical analysis, it proposes to view systems in a holistic manner. Consistent with systems philosophy, systems thinking concerns an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system. Science systems thinking attempts to illustrate that events are separated by distance and time and that small catalytic events can cause large changes in complex systems. Acknowledging that an improvement in one area of a system can adversely affect another area of the system, it promotes organizational communication at all levels in order to avoid the silo effect. Systems thinking techniques may be used to study any kind of system — natural, scientific, engineered, human, or conceptual.

8. The several ways to think of and define a system include:. • A system is composed of parts. • All the parts of a system must be related (directly or indirectly), else there are really two or more distinct systems. • A system is encapsulated, has a boundary. • The boundary of a system is a decision made by an observer, or a group of observers. • A system can be nested inside another system. • A system can overlap with another system. • A system is bounded in time. • A system is bounded in space, though the parts are not necessarily co-located. • A system receives input from, and sends output into, the wider environment. • A system consists of processes that transform inputs into outputs.

9. Science systems thinkers consider that: a system is a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as a structured functional unit; energy, material and information flow among the different elements that compose the system; a system is a community situated within an environment; energy, material and information flow from and to the surrounding environment via semi-permeable membranes or boundaries; systems are often composed of entities seeking equilibrium but can exhibit oscillating, chaotic, or exponential behavior. The systems thinking approach incorporates several tenets: Interdependence of objects and their attributes - independent elements can never constitute a system. Holism - emergent properties not possible to detect by analysis should be possible to define by a holistic approach. Goal seeking - systemic interaction must result in some goal or final state. Inputs and Outputs - in a closed system inputs are determined once and constant; in an open system additional inputs are admitted from the environment.

10. Transformation of inputs into outputs - this is the process by which the goals are obtained: • Entropy - the amount of disorder or randomness present in any system; • Regulation - a method of feedback is necessary for the system to operate predictably; • Hierarchy - complex wholes are made up of smaller subsystems; • Differentiation - specialized units perform specialized functions; • Equifinality - alternative ways of attaining the same objectives (convergence); • Multifinality - attaining alternative objectives from the same inputs (divergence) ;

11. The ecological model of competition is a reassessment of the nature of competition in the economy. Traditional economics models the economy on the principles of physics (force, equilibrium, inertia, momentum, and linear relationships). This can be seen in the economics lexicon: terms like labour force, market equilibrium, capital flows, and price elasticity. This is probably due to historical coincidence. Classical Newtonian physics was the state of the art in science when Adam Smith was formulating the first principles of economics in the 18th century. According to the ecological model, it is more appropriate to model the economy on biology (growth, change, death, evolution, survival of the fittest, complex inter-relationships, non-linear relationships). Businesses operate in a complex environment with interlinked sets of determinants. Companies co-evolve they influence, and are influenced by, competitors, customers, governments, investors, suppliers, unions, distributors, banks, and others. EcologicalApproach

12. We should look at this business environment as a business ecosystem that both sustains, and threatens the firm. A company that is not well matched to its environment might not survive. Companies that are able to develop a successful business model and turn a core competency into a sustainable competitive advantage will thrive and grow. Very successful firms may come to dominate their industry (referred to as category killers). Ecological economics is referred to as both a transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence and coevolution of human economies and natural ecosystems over time and space. It is distinguished from environmental economics, which is the mainstream economic analysis of the environment, by its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem and its emphasis upon preserving natural capital. One survey of German economists found that ecological and environmental economics are different schools of economic thought, with ecological economists emphasizing "strong" sustainability and rejecting the proposition that natural capital can be substituted by human-made capital.

13. Ecological economics was founded as a modern movement in the works of and interactions between various European and American academics, see the section on history and development below. The related field of green economics is, in general, a more politically applied form of the subject. Mainstream economics has attempted to become a value-free 'hard science', but ecological economists argue that value-free economics is generally not realistic. Ecological economics is more willing to entertain alternative conceptions of utility, efficiency, and cost-benefits such as positional analysis or multi-criteria analysis. Ecological economics is typically viewed as economics for sustainable development, and may have goals similar to green politics. Ecological economics is distinguishable from neoclassical economics primarily by its assertion that the economy is embedded within an environmental system. Ecology deals with the energy and matter transactions of life and the Earth, and the human economy is by definition contained within this system.

14. Ecological economists argue that neoclassical economics has ignored the environment, at best considering it to be a subset of the human economy. Ecological economics challenges the conventional approach towards natural resources, claiming that it undervalues natural capital by considering it as interchangeable with human-made capital—labor and technology. Neoclassical economists tend to maintain that man-made capital can, in principle, replace all types of natural capital. This is known as the weak sustainability view, essentially that every technology can be improved upon or replaced by innovation, and that there is a substitute for any and all scarce materials. At the other extreme, the strong sustainability view argues that the stock of natural resources and ecological functions are irreplaceable. From the premises of strong sustainability, it follows that economic policy has a fiduciary responsibility to the greater ecological world, and that sustainable development must therefore take a different approach to valuing natural resources and ecological functions.

15. Structural functionalism, or simply Functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole. This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole. In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought. The structural functionalism approach is a macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a whole. StructuralFunctionalApproach

16. Classical functionalist theories are defined by a tendency towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism: Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as the science providing the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation - functionalism strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts. Durkheim, following Comte, believed that society constitutes a separate "level" of reality, distinct from both biological and inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had therefore to be constructed within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. Thus the central concern of structural functionalism is explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by societies to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts (or social institutions) working together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium.

17. Allsocialandculturalphenomenaarethereforeseenasfunctionalinthesenseofworkingtogether, andareeffectivelydeemedtohave "lives" oftheirown. Theyareprimarilyanalyzedintermsofthisfunction. Theindividualissignificantnotinandofhimself, butratherintermsofhisstatus, hispositioninpatternsofsocialrelations, andthebehavioursassociatedwithhisstatus. Therefore, thesocialstructureisthenetworkofstatusesconnectedbyassociatedroles. AugusteComtepointedouttheneedtokeepsocietyunifiedasmanytraditionswerediminishing. Hesuggeststhatsociologyistheproductof a three-stagedevelopment: TheologicalStage:FromthebeginningofhumanhistoryuntiltheendoftheEuropeanMiddleAges, peopletook a religiousviewthatsocietyexpressedGod'swill. Inthetheologicalstate, thehumanmind, seekingtheessentialnatureofbeings, thefirstandfinalcauses (theoriginandpurpose) ofalleffects—inshort, absoluteknowledge—supposesallphenomenatobeproducedbytheimmediateactionofsupernaturalbeings. MetaphysicalStage:Peoplebeganseeingsocietyas a naturalsystemasopposedtothesupernatural. BeganwiththeEnlightenmentandtheideasofHobbes, Locke,andRousseau. Reflectedthefailingsof a selfishhumannatureratherthantheperfectionofGod. ScientificStage:Describingsocietythroughtheapplicationofthescientificapproach, whichdrawsontheworkofscientists.

18. Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), a Britishphilosopher famous for applying the theory of natural selection to society. He was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist. Spencer concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures (internal and external) that force it to adapt its internal structure through differentiation. Every solution, however, causes a new set of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. It should be noted that Spencer was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that: Selection pressures will be felt in time to change them; They will be felt and reacted to; or The solutions will always work. He was in many ways a political sociologist and recognized that the degree of centralized and consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability to adapt. In other words, he saw a general trend towards the centralization of power as leading to stagnation and ultimately, pressures to decentralize. Spencer recognized three functional needs or prerequisites that produce selection pressures: they are regulatory, operative (production) and distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems of control and coordination, production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of distributing these resources.

19. Public choice theory is the use of modern economic tools to study problems that traditionally are in the province of political science. From the perspective of political science, it is the subset of positive political theory that models voters, politicians, and bureaucrats as mainly self-interested. It studies such agents and their interactions in the social system either as such or under alternative constitutional rules. These can be represented in a number of ways, including standard constrained utility maximization, game theory, or decision theory. Public choice analysis has roots in positive analysis ("what is") but is often used for normative purposes ("what ought to be"), to identify a problem or suggest how a system could be improved by changes in constitutional rules, the subject of constitutional economics. Public choice theory is intimately related to social choice theory, which uses mathematical tools to study voting and voters. Much early work had aspects of both, and both use the tools of economics and game theory. Since voter behavior influences the behavior of public officials, public choice theory often uses results from social choice theory. PublicChoiceApproach

20. Prior to the emergence of public choice theory, many economists tended to consider the state as an agent outside the scope of economic theory, whose actions depend on different considerations than those driving economic agents. (The many other economists who did place the state and its agents within such theory include Vilfredo Pareto.) Public choice theory attempts to look at governments from the perspective of the bureaucrats and politicians who compose them, and makes the assumption that they act based on a budget-maximizing model in a self-interested way for the purpose of growing their own power and influence. The theory aims to apply economic analysis (usually decision theory and game theory) to the political decision-making process in order to reveal certain systematic trends towards inefficient government policies. Public choice theory is often used to explain how political decision-making results in outcomes that conflict with the preferences of the general public. For example, many advocacy group and pork barrel projects are not the desire of the overall democracy. However, it makes sense for politicians to support these projects. It may make them feel powerful and important. It can also benefit them financially by opening the door to future wealth as lobbyists. The project may be of interest to the politician's local constituency, increasing district votes or campaign contributions.

21. One way to organize the subject matter studied by public choice theorists is to begin with the foundations of the state itself. According to this procedure, the most fundamental subject is the origin of government. Although some work has been done on anarchy, autocracy, revolution, and even war, the bulk of the study in this area has concerned the fundamental problem of collectively choosing constitutional rules. This work assumes a group of individuals who aim to form a government, then it focuses on the problem of hiring the agents required to carry out government functions agreed upon by the members. Another major sub-field is the study of bureaucracy. The usual model depicts the top bureaucrats as being chosen by the chief executive and legislature, depending on whether the democratic system is presidential or parliamentary. The typical image of a bureau chief is a person on a fixed salary who is concerned with pleasing those who appointed him. The latter have the power to hire and fire him more or less at will. The bulk of the bureaucrats, however, are civil servants whose jobs and pay are protected by a civil service system against major changes by their appointed bureau chiefs. This image is often compared with that of a business owner whose profit varies with the success of production and sales, who aims to maximize profit, and who can in an ideal system hire and fire employees at will.

22. Contingencyapproach, alsoknownassituationalapproach, is a conceptinmanagementstatingthatthereisnooneuniversallyapplicablesetofmanagementprinciples (rules) bywhichtomanageorganizations. • Organizationsareindividuallydifferent, facedifferentsituations (contingencyvariables), andrequiredifferentwaysofmanaging. Contingencyapproachesremainlesscommonthanchangemanagementapproaches. • Contingencyapproachevolvedduringthe 1960s. Managementtheoryandresearchbegantoadopt a neworientation, onethatembodied a simpleconceptandenabledsignificantadvancementsinthestudyofmanagementandorganizations, nowreferredtoasthecontingencyapproach. • Itemphasisedtheimportanceofsituationalinfluencesonthemanagementoforganisationsandquestionedtheexistenceof a single, bestwaytomanageororganise. Today, thecontingencyapproachdominatestheoryandresearchinthemanagementliterature. ContingencyapproachchallengedtheclassicprocessandmodelsdesignedbymanagementtheoristssuchasTaylorandFayol. ContingencyApproach

23. A conceptual model of the contingency approach was developed by Kieser and Kubicek. According to the model, the formal structure of an organization defines the roles of its members in a specific way and thereby directs their behaviour to a certain degree. The performance of the organization depends on the degree to which these role definitions enable members to cope with the requirements resulting from the context of the organization. While classical management theorists such as Taylor and Fayol, were looking for the one best way in management and organization design, in the late 50s and early 60s a shift of paradigm arose, claiming that the organizational structure of a company or administration has to fit to the situation in which it finds itself. As these situations vary, different structures turn out to be most effective. In other words the optimal organizational structure is contingent, depending on certain contextual factors. Therefore this approach is labelled Contingency Approach, in German the context is termed “situation“; and the approach is called situational approach (“Situativer Ansatz“).

24. Different researchers focussed on different contextual factors and investigated their influence in empirical studies. Joan Woodward (1958) looked into the production technology, Blau and Schoenherr (1971) into the size of the organizations, Burns and Stalker (1961) as well as Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) into the economic environment, in particular market competition and technological change A broader approach was developed by a British team of researchers at the University of Aston by developing a conceptual scheme for the comparative analysis of organizational structure which took account of several contextual factors at the same time (Pugh & Hickson et al., 1963). In a survey of more than 30 organizations, seven contextual variables such as size, technology, geographical dispersion as well as five dimensions of organization structure (specialization, centralization of decision making, standardization, formalization and configuration) were operationalized by more than 80 indicators. Statistical analysis was directed towards identifying correlations, which were found, for example, between the size of an organization and the degree of specialization and formalization, as predicted by Max Weber. Later John Child joined the Aston Team and added variables describing the role structure and behaviour of organizational members and the performance of the organization, which are considered to be the relevant criteria for judging the fit between the structure and its context.

25. According to the Aston model, the formal structure of an organization defines the roles of its members in a specific way and thereby directs their behaviour to a certain degree. The performance of the organization depends on the degree to which these role definitions enable members to cope with the requirements resulting from the context of the organization. For example if there is strong competition and a high degree of technological change, decisions about new products and marketing strategies have to be changed frequently and be taken close to the market. The method to analyze and assess these kinds of relationships is the comparative quantitative analysis, in the most advanced stage a multi-level quantitative analysis, assigning data to the level of the context, the organization and its members. These variables are operationalized in quantitative indicators, and data are collected by standardized questionnaires distributed to several members of each organization under investigation and afterwards aggregated to different indices for each level (for more details see Kubicek, 1975).

26. Empirical studies conducted according to this model could identify some interesting relations but did not show very high correlations and clear cut patterns. The introduction of additional variables did not increase the level of the correlations. The fit of an organizational structure with its context depends on too many aspects and seems to be too complex, to be precisely captured by linear quantitative relations. However, the basic idea of the situational contingency of a particular object on its context as well as the idea that the performance of an institution depends on the fit between its properties and its relevant context is still valid and of great heuristic value as it suggests the critical examination of too early generalizations and asks for situational differentiation. This analytical approach can be found in other areas of management theory too (e.g. leadership styles or strategic management) as well as in studies on the social shaping of technology. For instance Kubicek and Westholm used a contingency model of the deployment of e-democracy tools in their scenarios of the future use of this kind of tools.