You are on page 1of 7

The Publicness of Public Administration

In the realm of the public administration theory, there has never been a clear-cut
definition of the publicness of public administration. There seems to be a Crisis
Identity, this is due to the lack of a consistent conceptual framework. In a study, it is
said that this now worsened and now contaminates not only the theory of public
administration but also the realm of the practice of public administration. Since there is
no clear-cut definition of publicness of public administration, public administration
theorists are compelled to research a subject that is characterized conceptual ambiguity
(Pesch, 2008).
Organizational Approaches to the Public-Private Distinction
In public administration theory, there are a number of alternative approaches that
can be recognized by the way public and private organizations are distinguished. There
are five constructed distinct approaches. These are the following: The Generic
Approach, The Economic Core Approach, The Political Core Approach, The Normative
Approach, and The Dimensional Approach.
The Economist Core Approach
The approach views that there is a essential difference between the private and
public organizations, or state and market organizations, the basis is the economic
assets like the performance, management and structure. Since both public and private
organizations is viewed in terms of their production of goods, it is thought of that the
status of being either a public or private organization makes a difference in the mode of
production. It is characterized further that the public organizations are something that

differs from standard, the deviant cases. While Private organizations are those
considered normal organizations. This view sees public organizations as less efficient in
providing goods and services because they are bounded by the presence of political
restrictions and absence of competition (Pesch, 2008).
The Political Core Approach
This approach claims that the main difference between public and private
organizations is the political impact that public organizations have. This approach views
that the public administration is occupied with serving the public interest and should not
be viewed as neutral as economic or political theory suggest. Public organizations
should be viewed as political agencies because they influenced how policies are made
and enacted (Pesch, 2008).
The Normative Approach
This approach is a variant of the Political Core Approach. It aspires to
deliberately use the political aspects of public administration. Public organizations not
only have to work to produce goods and services but have to also work on behalf of
public interest. There were two movements associated with this approach, the
Minnowbrook movement of the 1960s and the Blacksburg movement of 1980s. The
former claimed that administration involved political aspects and the new route of public
administration theory is through politics, seeing the publicness of public administration
as a normative addition that sets public organizations apart from all other organizations.
While the latter was a continuation, their core idea was that the publicness of public

administration is something distinctive, and this uniqueness lies in the presence of


public interest (Pesch, 2008).
The Dimensional Approach
This approach is the combination of the economic core approach and the political
core approach. The idea is that organizations are not simply connected to either the
market or the state, and therefore it is impossible to classify such mixed organizations.
Economics and politics are two distinct processes, concerned either with scarcity of
resources or with elites taking decisions and this distinction runs through all kinds of
organizations. Thus, organizations have to be presented as both economic entities
(enterprises) and political entities (agencies) (Dahl & Lindblom, 1963).
Two Versions of the Publicness of Public Administration
There are two means of conceptualizing the publicness of public administrations.
The conceptual versions are as follows: First, The economist version connects the
publicness of public administration to the publicness of public goods. Second, the
political version connects the publicness of public administration to the publicness of the
public interest.
In these conceptual views of public administration, there were arguments that
have been used to legitimize the production of public goods and services. First
argument originates from political philosophy and straightforwardly reasons that it is in
the interest of the public that government provide certain goods and services. Second
argument originates from economic theory and is composed of the so-called theory of
market failures. Political argument assumes that there is a direct relationship between

public interest and production of public goods and services but this relationship is
elusive in the economist argument (Pesch, 2008).
Liberal conception of public-private distinction is viewing that the basic
ontological entity is the individual and that the political domain, state, is derived from the
autonomy of the individual. Organic description of publicness views that it is the whole
community that precedes the individuals who constitute the community. These are the
arguments for the increasing role of the state. In conclusion there are two meanings that
mark the publicness of public administrations but public administration effectively
integrates these. This phenomenon is the collision of two contrasting description of
reality. In practical terms, this means that public administration is a balancing act. Like
those practitioners of public administration, public administration theorist is also
subjected to this balancing act. The identity of public administration is constituted by a
double meaning of publicness; this implies that instead of a crisis, it is more sensible to
acknowledge the double meaning as an inevitable fact. In the end the article argues the
in Addressing this ambiguous identity in public administration theory clearly means that
the dimensional approach to the distinction between public and private organizations
must be applied. It further argues that this approach is already quite aged and
deserves further development also should be taking to account the recent
developments. Lastly the author posed a challenged that instead of finding a universal
and ambiguous definition of the public in public administration, it is much sensible to see
publicness as an intrinsically ambiguous concept, describing two contradictory aspects
of what we, as a society, think is the appropriate task of administration (Pesch, 2008).

As the article argues about the definition and the ideas about the publicness of
public administration, it is good that the empirical and theoretical approach to public
administration is given consideration. Government survives when it provides good
public administration. And public administration is good when people find in the
government the full expression of popular will (Leveriza, 2012). I agree with the idea
that the public goods and services being part of public interest and that government
should be the provider and in the idea of the economic theory and the market failures,
that there are such things that would be better for the government to do especially
because it would be a burden for a private individual to tackle by himself. Im also in
support of the view about the publicness being of the community and in the liberal view.
This translates to the idea that public goods does not depend on the number of the
people that the goods are directed to but favours the welfare of public in general. Yes,
the dimension approach is better suited in the publicness of the public administration
but it needs development because there are expansions and development happening to
the different economic and social spheres that would also affect the public
administration.
In the Philippine setting, public administration is mainly viewed in the practical
sense of the word. The common notion of public administration is those of the politicians
and how they formulate projects for the masses. The idea of the distinction between the
empirical and theoretical are left much to the academe. I think that in the Philippine
setting, the approach used here is still compatible with the public administration of the
Philippines, as the Dimensional approach has both the economic core approach and the
political approach, additionally, the view about the economic entities and political entities

may translates to the differences of the public and private administration in the country.
Philippines may be just a developing country but the idea about the public
administration is the same, that it is the good public administration that determines the
survival of the government. The connection with economic and political to the
publicness of public goods and publicness of public interest is also applicable in the
case of the Philippines as there are entities that are for the economic and then there are
those for the political. It is also the same that it is in the interest of the public that the
government provide certain public goods and services and I think this is in conjunction
with the economic view of market failures as emerging from the shortcoming of markets,
these are those failures arising when market system leads to inequalities or externalities
and then the state must assume the production of goods. In the Philippine setting, this
can be seen with the projects that should be for public purpose and in cases of
emergencies that the government should take over the production. The different thing in
the Philippine setting lies with those supposedly producers of public goods and services
as they are, especially the politicians, not providing enough for the public. The idea here
in the article is on how the public administration is, but in the setting in the Philippines
the public administration is seen as a business and run like one.

References
Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. E. (1963). Politics, economics, and welfare. Planning and politicoeconomic systems resolved into basic social processes . New York: Harper & Row.
Leveriza, J. (2012). Public Administration The Business of Government. Mandaluyong City:
National Bookstore.
Pesch, U. (2008, March 17). The Publicness of Public Administration. Amsterdam.

You might also like