Introducing public administration 8th edition chapter summaries

This is the book- Introducing Public Administration (8th Edition) 8th Edition

by Jay M. Shafritz (Author), E. W. Russell (Author), Christopher P. Borick (Author)

ISBN:

020585589X

ISBN-13:

9780205855896

Module one overview

Go to this link https://youtu.be/nD3ifZSkuKs

Here is the chapter lectures:

Chapter 1 lecture Introduction to public administration

There is often a crisis in modern day academia when you cannot attribute the foundation of your school of thought to a founder or group of thinkers. Psychology has Freud, Management has Frederick Taylor, and Public Administration has Woodrow Wilson.

Much like the reference to our nation’s “founding fathers,” disciplines of study rely heavily on the influence of foundational principles in literal bodies of people.

And there are two distinctions to be made here, one that’s crucial. First, there is a difference between political science, the study of the machine that charts future policy courses and maneuvers through elections cycles and public administration. There is also a difference between business management and public administration, though much more blurry in our day because of the political rhetoric that has ingrained in us today that government should operate more like a business.

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, before he became President of Princeton University and eventually the United States, suggested that public administration determine “first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or energy” (p. 27). Wilson provided this solid framework to keep the discussion within the context of the public sector.

So what is public administration? Public administration is about the management of trust and the public trust. It is the “do” or “don’t do” of government in action. And, there has always been a component of “faith” a close relative to the word trust. When one person has faith in another person, the person with whom the faith has been “entrusted” is responsible for fulfilling the duty for which the faith has been awarded. The public literally places their faith or trust in the government. Public administration is government in action.

Walter Lippman wrote that “the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently.” If the government and public administration always acted in this noble way, there would be no problems. And while it may act this way, we are only really interested in, and served up hot off the press, the times when it fails, the scandals, or the mistakes.

You might even think of this trust in terms of the way a person makes a payment for a good or service. People entrust, or place their faith in, allow the deposit of their goodwill, public servants who have the duty or responsibility to make good on that trust.

Back in the days of the despot, pharaoh, king or ruler, the office of public administration only really had to focus on maintaining the trust invested in them by the sovereign. A famous example, or case study, of safeguarding the public trust of the sovereign comes to us by way of Joseph and Pharaoh in Egypt. While the text covers Moses in this regard, I believe Joseph is a much more applicable case to study because of the structure of the government in Egypt.

The story goes that Joseph of Egypt, the same one who sparked the imagination of Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, was sold into slavery by his brothers out of jealousy for the love that his father Jacob had for him.

His brothers, years later, were sent to Egypt in search of grain and food since there had been a famine for so long. After much dramatic back and forth, they finally realized that their brother Joseph had risen to the rank of second in command over all of Egypt.

Joseph had been faithful in service, but was accused by Potiphar’s wife of sleeping with her, so he was sent to prison. After being released from prison years later on account of his merit for explaining a dream to the Pharaoh, he was made second in command to Pharaoh.

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Since God has made all this known to you [namely, interpreting Pharaoh’s dream to mean the coming seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine], there is no one so discerning and wise as you. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.’ (Gen. 41:39-40)

But what did that mean for Joseph to “be in charge” on behalf of Pharaoh?

Now, Pharaoh placed his trust in Joseph to be the administrator of his entire kingdom for the good of the throne, pharaoh’s glory, and the safety and preservation of his people, pharaoh’s kingdom. This is an important item to note, especially in light of the experiment that is the United States. The historic record from Genesis 47 tells us:

So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.”

In the end, Joseph was “in charge” in Egypt so completely that the entire nation of Egypt was purchased by Pharaoh and enslaved! And they LOVED Joseph for it! Joseph interpreted that Pharaoh’s will was to do whatever necessary to preserve and protect his people. Joseph, in essence, created perhaps the precedent for the first formal law regarding national taxation!

The story about Joseph is critically important because of the way it illustrates the complex ends of public administration. While Joseph could be free to serve at the pleasure of the throne, public administrators in a democratic republic must aim to please different audiences, or constituencies. Constituencies are people who have a shared vested interest in something.

Take a modern day case, such as the passage of the Patriot Act. In the name of preserving and protecting freedom, we have expanded the government’s ability to perform wire taps and secret reconnaissance at home and abroad. Again, this expansion was done during a time of heightened fear of the unknown (sound like Egypt?) when people wanted to ensure that 9/11 wouldn’t happen again. The expansion of power results in a gross reduction in personal privacy and freedom. It is the reality. The point is that there are protections in writing, constitutionally speaking, that counter the expansion of the powers of government.

Joseph of Egypt provides a framework for what can happen in a despotic rule where public administrators have one person to whom they owe their allegiance. It provides a framework for injustice and was exactly what prompted Woodrow Wilson to write his essay about reforming the civil service.

All constitutions, whether codified or just cultural traditions, prior to the US Constitution, for the purposes of our discussion, place a ruler at the top of the structure and the people at the bottom. These despotic rulers derive their authority from a god. Going back to the case of Joseph, he didn’t have to worry about public opinion because he served at the pleasure of the Pharaoh. Pharaoh ruled by god. In fact, Pharaohs extolled that they were gods!

The American experiment in government turns the paradigm on its head. The establishment of the United States was formed around the joint purpose of furthering mutual benefits. Not only that, but Thomas Jefferson and others wrote in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

The magic here is that the people derived their authority to self-govern from the divine, which placed them, people, at the top of the pyramid – not a pharaoh, king or despot. The Constitution submitted that people give their consent to be governed; no ruler has a claim to it. Not only was this legal agreement for the mutual benefit of the governed, but it was at the “consent of the governed.”

Now, this is incredible: the people now had a right to “abolish” and “institute new government” in cases where the government was abusing its authority! The preamble for the US Constitution states its purpose:

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

What’s the point? It’s not enough that the field of public administration is vast. The public administrator finds himself in this situation: entrusted with the public charge, in a political environment with legal frameworks managing affairs for the public welfare that are not always well defined and sometimes detested by some.

Back in Joseph’s day, Egypt became the property of the pharaoh. It may be interesting to consider the parallels in modern day public administration and government in the United States with what happened in ancient Egypt during the time of Joseph. This very context of communal benefit lends itself to the unfortunate phenomenon of a “tragedy of the commons” whereby public consent for government acting in their behalf actually destroys public resources, eventually angering the general public who entrusted the job to the public administrator in the first place - even when it goes poorly – even when it’s not his or her fault - even when it was something they did expertly!

Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” He was the son of a Presbyterian Minister who was brought up in a family of faith. In our postmodern era, it may be difficult to understand the attraction of those claiming “faith” and those today who claim intellectual “rights” to serve or rule, whichever the case. But it’s unwise to ignore the clear evidence that public administrators in the past were very often men of faith or espoused themselves to be.

Noam Chomsky, I believe, illustrates this point in his book On Nature and Language:

Consider the Old Testament. There is an obscure Hebrew word that is translated as “prophet” in English (and, similarly, other Western languages). It means something like “intellectual.” The prophets offered critical geopolitical analysis and moral critique and counsel. Many centuries later, they were honored; at the time, they were not exactly welcomed. There were also “intellectuals” who were honored: the flatterers at the courts of the kings. Centuries later, they were

denounced as “false prophets.” The prophets were the dissidents,

the false prophets the commissars.

And this is not where the field of public administration leads us. For us in this course, something much better is in store.

The vast majority of those who serve, continue the “Spartan tradition of duty unto death,” especially those serving as police and firefighters. But remember, public administration today encompasses those who serve as teachers, street sweepers, garbage collectors, and tax collectors. It even includes those working in nonprofits such as Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and others who receive federal, state, and local government funding to fulfill their mission – an extension of the public trust. Finally, could it even include those who work in the business sector who apply for and receive government contracts to essentially carry on the duties and responsibilities of government?

Maybe a better question is: “who doesn’t work for the government?”

Chapter 2 lecture Public Policy

We’ll take a look at this chapter by reviewing a few different keystone policies closely that affect modern day public administration. By focusing on the primary texts and thinking through some of the historical contexts within which we find ourselves, we’ll be able to have a better understanding. This focus won’t go in depth on the philosophical principles for war, including whether it is a just war or not, but remains focused on the policy-administration dichotomy. Incidentally, there is no other book than the Art of War by Sun Tzu recommended to political science majors to read. By using “war” as the framework for our policy-administration discussion, we have a very interesting opportunity to explore power.

The first of these is the Hague Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities. Signed in 1907, it was entered into the care of modern day Netherlands, but now in the care of France. It was intended to build on, or rather replace, the previous Convention’s work in 1899. The most important component of this treaty is arguably in the first article: “The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning.” And thus, there has been a codifying of the rules of engagement in war in the modern era. Our text records the words of Winston Churchill who remarked, “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”

Now, in the United States, Congress (which consists of the US House & Senate) has the sole authority to declare war, and has done so on eleven occasions beginning with the War of 1812; the last one was World War II precipitated by the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan.

The war in Korea, for example, was fought under the auspices of United Nations forces enacting “police action” during a vote when Russia, who was influencing North Korea, was absent.

vietnam war

The war in Vietnam lasted almost twenty years and began with Eisenhower sending money, then Kennedy sending troops, then Lyndon Johnson expanding the number of troops, up to about 500,000 by 1968, sent under the authority of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which he interpreted as a “declaration of war,” even though the apparent attack made on the US to warrant expanded involvement was never verified to be related to an attack from North Vietnam. More than 58,000 Americans died, 150,000 were wounded.

This led to the passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973 during Nixon’s presidency, which sought to clarify the constitutional role of Congress in the use of military force without a declaration of war. Among the powers enumerated, the president was to consult with Congress before introducing troops and report to them within 48 hours of introducing them.

Our textbook explains some of the high notes:

The use of armed forces is to be terminated within 60 days with a possible 30 day extension by the president, unless Congress declares war, enacts a specific authorization for use of armed forces, extends the 60- to 90- day period or the president is physically unable to meet as a result of an attack on the United States. At any time before the 60 days expire, Congress may direct by concurrent resolution that American military forces be removed by the president.

Since inception, the War Powers Resolution has largely been ignored by the president. President George HW Bush sent troops into Panama and the Persian Gulf without consulting Congress. Back in the mid-19th century, President Polk sent the military into what is now California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, to prompt Mexicans into a fight. He was successful and the nation was “at war” even though it wasn’t declared. Fast forward to 9/11 where President Bush was given a joint resolution from Congress entitled “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” How could Congress formally declare war against the informal, non-nation state terror group Al Qaeda. Ultimately, as our text puts it, the “president alone” has the authority to wage war. Therefore, what stops a president from dictatorial, primarily politics and the Congressional purse.

As we talked about earlier in this lecture with reference to Joseph of Egypt serving the pharaoh as sovereign, the United States Constitution literally reversed the pyramid of power and placed people as the collective sovereign. Our textbook illustrates this clearly with words from Woodrow Wilson: “Just what is it that America stands for? If she stands for one thing more than another, it is for the sovereignty of self-governing people.” With these words he captures the spirit of democracy in the application of a republican government where the people divest some of their self-governing authority into others who will represent their interests.

Do you see how remarkable this is? How incredible it is that we live in a nation like this where we the people are the bosses, not a dictator. This nation is truly the greatest experiment on earth!

The republican form of government was intentionally crafted to check the power of the “mob” or the democracy that would give way to that form of extremism. Republicanism, in its historical context, protected against demagoguery, or the use of rhetoric to sway people into submission. Franklin illustrated the delicate balance of the structure in his reply about what form of government we have when he said: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Federalist Paper Number 51 illustrates the point of the checks and balances, which was the intention if you remember of the constitution and was covered in our discussion about the powers of war. Madison wrote:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Next, we will move through some thoughts on the executive authority, hopefully explaining some common words that may not be generally understood.

There are three views explained in our textbook that cover the powers of the president.

The first, the Restricted or Strict Constructionist view was held by president Taft and read the US Constitutional powers to be enumerated and unless he could find reasonable support for an action, he was at the mercy of the Congress.

The second is the Prerogative Theory, espoused by John Locke and fulfilled in person by Abraham Lincoln who felt that there that you had to do that could be unconstitutional if it meant the greater good or the preservation of the nation. Always is the case that the real problem with this form of thinking is not in the good that results in the hands of the wise and trustworthy, but the precedent that it sets for the unscrupulous, perhaps even evil and despotic who follow. In these cases, the executive power should be checked by the judicial power. We see this theory in action during times of crisis and/or emergency… even as that very definition is a moving target.

In 1974 Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, the courts enumerated the idea of presidential privilege for military, diplomatic, or security affairs, but did not allow for carte blanche privilege and the ability to refuse a subpoena to testify before the court.

Finally, the Stewardship Theory of executive powers of the presidency might be called the “gray” theory. This view, adopted by Theodore Roosevelt, espoused a belief that the president was the chief representative of the people and therefore he could do whatever he wanted as long as it wasn’t directly prohibited by statute or the constitution.

It is in the realm of politicians to determine what policies are worth fighting for and there are several theories of how this is done, or calculated, by the political class. However, before a policy change becomes formed, it has to be conceived through an agenda setting process that can happen through the media, a “social entrepreneur,” a grassroots organization, a nonprofit, or a crisis or even just one person. Once that “agenda” regarding a policy position has been formed rudimentary, it must go through some stages in order to be considered.

Famous political and social scientist Harold Lasswell considered seven phases in the decision making process:

The intelligence phase, involving an influx of information

The promoting or recommending phase, involving activities designed to influence the outcome

The prescribing phase, involving the articulation of norms

The invoking phase, involving establishing correspondence between prescriptions and concrete circumstance

The application phase, in which the prescription is executed

The appraisal phase, assessing intent in relation to effect

The terminating phase, treating expectations (rights) established while the prescription was in force

All of these stages in the decision making process are for policies that by nature must always and continually be amended, rejected, changed or evolved.

Charles Lindblom opposed the theoretical framework espoused by Harold Lasswell and posited his own Incremental Theory of how decisions are made and policies get done. The main point of this theory is that policy decision makers don’t have access to the sum of all information relative to the policy, nor the time to make decisions rationally, nor does the political environment offer them this privilege. Instead, decisions are made with political considerations incrementally toward an end zone.

T

his

is the book

-

Introducing Public Administration (8th Edition) 8th Edition

by Jay M. Shafritz (Author), E. W. Russell (Author), Christopher P. Borick (Author)

ISBN:

020585589X

ISBN

-

13:

9780205855896

Module one overview

G

o

to this link

https://youtu.be/nD3ifZSkuKs

H

ere

is the chapter lectures:

Chapter 1 lecture

Introduction to public administration

T

here is often a crisis in modern day academia when you cannot attribute the foundation of your school

of thought to a founder or group of thinkers. Psychology has Freud, Management has Frederick Taylor,

and Public Administration has Woodrow Wilson.

Much l

ike the reference to our nation’s “founding fathers,” disciplines of study rely heavily on the

influence of foundational principles in literal bodies of people.

And there are two distinctions to be made here, one that’s crucial. First, there is a differen

ce between

political science, the study of the machine that charts future policy courses and maneuvers through

elections cycles and public administration. There is also a difference between business management and

public administration, though much more bl

urry in our day because of the political rhetoric that has

ingrained in us today that government should operate more like a business.

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, before he became President of Princeton

University and eventua

lly the United States, suggested that public administration determine “first, what

government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the

utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of mon

ey or energy” (p. 27). Wilson

provided this solid framework to keep the discussion within the context of the public sector.

So what is public administration? Public administration is about the management of trust and the public

trust. It is the “do” or “d

on’t do” of government in action. And, there has always been a component of

“faith” a close relative to the word trust. When one person has faith in another person, the person with

whom the faith has been “entrusted” is responsible for fulfilling the duty

for which the faith has been

awarded. The public literally places their faith or trust in the government. Public administration is

government in action.

Walter Lippman wrote that “the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they

saw

clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently.” If the government and public

administration always acted in this noble way, there would be no problems. And while it may act this

way, we are only really interested in, and served up ho

t off the press, the times when it fails, the

scandals, or the mistakes.

You might even think of this trust in terms of the way a person makes a payment for a good or service.

People entrust, or place their faith in, allow the deposit of their goodwill, p

ublic servants who have the

duty or responsibility to make good on that trust.

This is the book- Introducing Public Administration (8th Edition) 8th Edition

by Jay M. Shafritz (Author), E. W. Russell (Author), Christopher P. Borick (Author)

ISBN:

020585589X

ISBN-13:

9780205855896

Module one overview

Go to this link https://youtu.be/nD3ifZSkuKs

Here is the chapter lectures:

Chapter 1 lecture Introduction to public administration

There is often a crisis in modern day academia when you cannot attribute the foundation of your school

of thought to a founder or group of thinkers. Psychology has Freud, Management has Frederick Taylor,

and Public Administration has Woodrow Wilson.

Much like the reference to our nation’s “founding fathers,” disciplines of study rely heavily on the

influence of foundational principles in literal bodies of people.

And there are two distinctions to be made here, one that’s crucial. First, there is a difference between

political science, the study of the machine that charts future policy courses and maneuvers through

elections cycles and public administration. There is also a difference between business management and

public administration, though much more blurry in our day because of the political rhetoric that has

ingrained in us today that government should operate more like a business.

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, before he became President of Princeton

University and eventually the United States, suggested that public administration determine “first, what

government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the

utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or energy” (p. 27). Wilson

provided this solid framework to keep the discussion within the context of the public sector.

So what is public administration? Public administration is about the management of trust and the public

trust. It is the “do” or “don’t do” of government in action. And, there has always been a component of

“faith” a close relative to the word trust. When one person has faith in another person, the person with

whom the faith has been “entrusted” is responsible for fulfilling the duty for which the faith has been

awarded. The public literally places their faith or trust in the government. Public administration is

government in action.

Walter Lippman wrote that “the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they

saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently.” If the government and public

administration always acted in this noble way, there would be no problems. And while it may act this

way, we are only really interested in, and served up hot off the press, the times when it fails, the

scandals, or the mistakes.

You might even think of this trust in terms of the way a person makes a payment for a good or service.

People entrust, or place their faith in, allow the deposit of their goodwill, public servants who have the

duty or responsibility to make good on that trust.