In the current epoch, due to the worldwide movement of privatization, public administration as a field of study has come under considerable intellectual challenge. The genre of intellectual crisis created by this historical phenomenon is different from and more disparaging than the previous modes of crisis, such as the paradigm crisis and identity crisis, in the field The newly emerging intellectual crisis in public administration takes three main forms: the credibility crisis, the normative crisis, and the confidence crisis. In this article, the nature and causes of this current crisis are explicated and alternative intellectual strategies to overcome such crisis are explored
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allison, G. T. (1982). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In. S. Lane (Ed.), Current issues in public administration (pp. 13-33). New York: St. Martin's.
2.
Altshuler, A. A. (1992). Foreward. In M. Barzelay & B. J. Anmnanimi, Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government (pp. vii-xii). Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Arblaster, A. (1991). The death of socialism—gain. Political Quarterly, 62(1), 45-51.
4.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. New YorkViking.
6.
Argyriades, D. (1990). Bureaucracy and debureaucratization. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Hand-book of comparative and development public administration (pp. 567-585). New York: Marcel Dekker.
7.
Baldwin, J.N. , & Farley, Q.A. (1990). Comparing the public and private sectors in the United States: A review of the empirical research. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of comparative and development public administration (pp. 27-39). New York: Marcel Dekker.
8.
Barzelay, M. , & Armanjani, B. J. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
Bellavita, C. (1991). The public administrator as hero. Administration & Society, 23, 155-185.
10.
Bernstein, R. J. (1978). The restructuring of social and political theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
11.
Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
12.
Bhattacharya, M. (1990). Recent advances in the discipline of public administration. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 36(1), 1-15.
13.
Boneo, H. (1986). Privatization: Ideology and praxis. In W. P. Glade (Ed.), State shrinking: A comparative inquiry into privatization (pp. 40-59). Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
14.
Bozeman, B. (1988). Exploring the limits of public and private sectors: Sector boundaries as maginot line. Public Administration Review, 48, 672-674.
15.
Briones, L. ML (1985). The role of government-owned or controlled corporations in development. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 19(4), 365-391.
16.
Brooks, S. (1983). The paradox of policy science. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 29(2), 215-228.
17.
Buchanan, J. M. , & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18.
Burrell, G. , & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigm and organizational analysis. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational.
19.
Caiden, G. E. (1984). In search of an a political science of American public administration. In J. Rabin & J. S. Bowman (Eds.), Politics and administration (pp. 51-76). New York: Marcel Dekker.
20.
Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Catron, B. , & Harmon, M. (1981). Action theory in practice: Towards theory without conspiracy. Public Administration Review, 41, 535-541.
22.
Cleary, R. E. (1990). What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed?Public Administration Review, 50, 663-673.
23.
Conant, J. K. (1992). Enrollment trends in schools of pubic affairs and administration: A search for winners and losers. Public Administration Review, 52, 288-297.
24.
Coursey, D. , & Bozeman, B. (1990). Decision making in public and private organizations: A test of alternative concepts of "pubicness.'Pubic Administration Review, 50, 525-535.
25.
Con, R. W. (1990). MPA as management education. International Journal of Public Administration, 13(1-2), 1-20.
26.
Cummings, L. L. (1983). The logics of managementAcademy of Management Review, 8, 532-539.
27.
Daneke, G. A. (1990). A science of public administration?Public Administration Review, 50, 383-392.
28.
Denhardt, R. B. (1984). Theories of public organizationPacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
29.
Donahue, J. D. (1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New YorkBasic Books.
30.
Downs, A. (1966). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
31.
Dunshire, A. (1973). Administration: The word and science. London: Mi Robertson.
32.
Dunsire, A. (1991). The politics of public administration reform In B. C. Smith (Ed), The changing role of government: Management of social and economic activities (pp. 191-208). London: Management Development Programme, Commonwealth Secretariat.
33.
Dwivedi, O. P. (1983). Ethics and administrative accountability. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 29(3), 504-517.
34.
Eiussein, A. M. (1989). Policy analysis and public administration: A theoretical review. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 35(2), 220-232.
35.
Esman, M. J. (1990). The state, government bureaucracies, and their alternatives. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of comparative and development public administration (pp. 457-465). New YorkMarcel Dekker.
36.
Farazmand, A. (1989). Crisis in the U.S. administrative state. Administration & Society, 21, 173-199.
37.
Feigenbaum, H. B. , & Henig, J. R. (1994). The political underpinnings of privatization: A typology. World Politics, 46(2), 185-208.
38.
Fitzgerald R. (1988). When government goes private: Successful alternatives to public services. New YorkUniverse.
39.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Ten, 25126, 56-80.
40.
Frederickson, H. G. (1991). Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration & Society, 22, 395-417.
41.
Frederickson, H. G. , & Hart, D. K. (1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45, 547-553.
42.
Gellner, E. (1985). Relativism and the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Glade, W. P. (Ed.). (1986). State shrinking: A comparative inquiry into privatization. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
44.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1990). Leaning from administrative experience: Transformation or evolution?Indian Journal of Pubic Administration, 36(3), 647-654.
45.
Gore, A. (1993). Creating a government that works better & costs less: Report of the national performance review. New York. Random House.
46.
Gortner, H. R. (1981).Administration in the public sector. New York. John Wiley.
47.
Hale, D. (1988). Just what is a policy, anyway? And who's supposed to make it? A survey of the public administration and policy text. Administration & Society, 19, 423-452.
48.
Hanke, S. H. (1987). Introduction. In S. H. Hanke (Ed.), Privatization and development (pp. 3-5). San Francisco: ICS.
49.
Harmon, M. M. , & Mayer, R. T. (1986). Organization theory for public administration. Boston: Little, Brown.
50.
Hart, D. K. , & Wasden, C. D. (1990). Two roads diverged in a yellow wood: Public administration, the management orthodoxy, and civic humanInternational Journal of Public Administration, 13(6), 747-775.
51.
Hatry, H. P. (1982). The status of productivity measurement in the public sector In S. Lane (Ed.), Current issues in public administration (pp. 427-445). New York: St. Martin's.
52.
Heald, D. (1990). The relevance of privatization to developing economies. Public Administration and Development, 18(1), 3-18.
53.
Hejka-Ekins, A. (1988). Teaching ethics in public administration. Public Administration Review, 48, 885-891.
54.
Henry, N. (1980). Public administration and public affairs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
55.
Hines, S. M. (1982). Is synthesis philosophically possible? The paradigm problem in the philosophy of social science. In W. T. Bhihm (Ed), The paradigm problem in political science (pp. 25-63). Durham, NC: Carolina Academy Press.
56.
House, P. W. , & ShulL R. D. (1989). Effective policy analysis. In J. L Perry (Ed.) Handbook of public administration (pp. 237-247). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57.
Ingrahani, P. W. , & Roseabloom, D. H. (1990). Political foundations of the federal service: Rebuilding a crumbling base. Public Administration Review, 50, 210-219.
58.
Jennings, E. T. (1991). Public choice and the privatization of government: Implications for public administration. In J. S. Ott, A. C. Hyde, & J. M Shafitz (Eds.), Public management: The essential readings (pp. 113-129). Chicago: Lyceum.
59.
Katznelson, I. (1986). Rethinking the silences of social and economic policy. Political Science Quarterly, 101(2), 307-325.
60.
Kearney, R. C. , & Sinha, C. (1988). Professionalism and bureaucratic responsiveness: Conflict or compatibility?Public Administration Review, 48, 571-579.
61.
Kettil, D. F. (1990). The perils and prospects of public administration. Public Administration Review, 50, pp. 411-419.
62.
Kirwan, K. A. (1977). The crisis of identity in the study of public administration: Woodrow Wilson. Polity, 9(3), 321-343.
63.
Kirwan, K. A. (1987). Woodrow Wilson and the study of public administration: Response to Van Riper. Administration &Society, 18, 389-401.
64.
Linowes, D. F. (1988). Privatization: Toward more effective government-Report of the president's commission on privatizationUrbana: University of Illinois Press.
65.
Long, N. E. (1990). Conceptual notes on the public interest for public administration and policy analysis. Administration & Society, 22, 170-181.
66.
Lundqvist, L. J. (1988). Privatization: Towards a concept for comparative policy analysis. Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 1-19.
67.
Martin, D. W. (1988). The fading legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Public Administration Review, 48, 631-636.
68.
Mathews, D. (1985). The public in practice and theory. Public Administration Review, 44, 120-125.
69.
McCurdy, H. E. (1986). Public administration: A bibliographic guide to the literature. New York: Marcel Dekker.
70.
Meltsner, A. J. (1976). Policy analysis in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
71.
Mertins, H. , & Hennigan, P. J. (1982). Applying professional standards and ethics in the `80s: A workbook and study guide for public administrators. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
72.
Morgan, D. Ri , & England, R. E. (1988). The two faces of privatization. Public Administration Review, 48, 979-987.
73.
Morrow,W. L. (1980).Public administration Politics, policy, and the poltical system. New York. Random House.
74.
Morrow, W. M. : (1987). The pluralist legacy in American public administration. In Ri C. Chandler (Ed.), A centennial history of the American administrative state (pp. 161-188). New YorkFree Press.
75.
Moussios, A. , & Legge, J. S. (1990). Implementing the denationalization option: Great Britain and the United States. In A. Farazmand (Ed), Handbook of comparative and development public administrative (pp. 41-51). New York: Marcel Dekker.
76.
Murray, M. (1975). Comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35, 364-371.
77.
Musolf, L. D. , & Seidman, a (1980). The blurred boundaries of public administration. Public Administrative Review, 40, 124-130.
78.
Nigro, L. G. , & Richardson, W. D. (1990). Between citizen and administator: Administrative ethics and AR. Public Administration Review, 50, 623-635.
79.
Noble, J. B. (1982). Social structure and paradigm synthesis: Theoretical commensurability and the problem of Mannheim's Paradox. In W. T. Bluhm (Ed.), The paradigm problem in political science (pp. 65-109). Durham, NC: Carolina Academy Press.
80.
Osborne, D. , & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reiventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
81.
Ostrom, V. (1974). The intellectual crisis in American public administration (Rev. ed.). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
82.
Perry, J. L, & Kraemer, K. L. (1986). Research methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975-1984. Public Administration Review, 46, 215-226.
83.
Petras, J. (1990). The world market: Battleground for the 1990s. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 20(2), 145-176.
84.
Pirie, M. (1988). Privatization: Theory practice and choice. Aldershot, England: Wildwood.
85.
Poverty figures. (1988, September 1). Washington Post, p. A22.
86.
Pugh, D. L. (1990). ASPA remembered: Reflections on the society's golden anniversary. Public Administration Review, 50, 267-273.
87.
Quaryoty, M. Q. (1983). A critical assessment of the present state of policy science. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 29(2), 229-243.
88.
Rainey, H. G. , Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. N. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 223-244.
89.
Ramos, A. G. (1981). The new science of organizations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
90.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1979). Public administration and public policy. Farnborough, England: Saxon House.
91.
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
92.
Spiers, ML (1975). Techniques and public administration. London: M. Robertson.
93.
Srivastava, O. P. (1990). Quandary of public administration. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 36(2), 177-192.
94.
Stallings, R. A. , & Ferris, L. A. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review, 48, 580-587.
95.
Starr, P. (1991). The case of skepticism In W. T. Gormley, Jr. (Ed.), Privatization and its alternatives (pp. 25-36). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
96.
Stewart, D. W. (1991). Theoretical foundations of ethics in administration. Administration & Society, 23, 357-373.
97.
Stivers, C. (1991). Some tensions in the notion of "the public as citizen': Rejoinder to Prederickson. Administration & Society, 22, 418-423.
98.
Van Riper, P. (1983). The administrative state: Wilson and the founders—An unorthodox view. Public Administration Review, 43, 477-490.
99.
Ventriss, C. (1987). Two critical issues of American public administration: Reflections of a sympathetic participantAdministration & Society, 19, 25-47.
100.
Ventriss, C. (1989). Toward a public philosophy of public administration: Acivic perspective of the public. Public Administration Review, 49, 173-179.
101.
Ventriss, C. (1991). Contemporary issues in American public administration education: The search for an educational focus. Public Administration Review, 51, 4-14.
102.
Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York: Ronald Press.
103.
Waldo, D. (1968). Scope of the Theory of Public Administration. In J. C. Charlesworth (Ed.), Theory and practice of public administration: Scope, objectives, and methods (pp. 1-26). Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
104.
Waldo, D. (1981). The enterprise of pubic administration. San Francisco: Chandler &Sharp.
105.
Waldo, D. (1982). Bureaucracy and democracy: Reconciling the irreconcilable? In Frederick S. Lane (Ed.), Current issues in public administration (pp. 186-198). New YorkSt. Martin's.
106.
Wart, M: V. , & Cayer, N. J. (1990). Comparative public administration: Defunct, dispersed, or redefined?Public Administration Review, 50, 238-248.
107.
Werlin, H. (1988). Development administration: New books versus old mysteries. Public Administration Review, 48, 816-819.
108.
White, J. D. (1986). On the growth of knowledge in public administration. Public Administratin Review, 46, 15-25.
109.
White, L. G. (1989). Public management in a pluralistic arena. Public Administration Review, 49, 522-532.
110.
White, M. J. , Radnor, M.:, & Tansik, D. A. (1975). Management and policy science in American government. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
111.
White, O. F. , & McSwain, C. J. (1990). The Phoenix Project: Raising a new images of public administration from the ashes of the pastAdministration & Society, 22, 3-38.
112.
Wildavsky, A. (1988). Ubiquitous anomie: Public service in an era of ideological dissensus. Public Administration Review, 48, 753-755.
113.
Wiltshire, K. (1975). An introduction to Australia public administration. Melboue: Cassell Australia.
114.
Wise, C. R. (1990). Public service configurations and public organizations: Public organization design in the post-privatization era. Public Administration Review, 50, 141-155.
