The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration (original) (raw)

'If scholars live or die in terms of the images they create, students of public administration are clearly in trouble even if some hope still exists. …' Thus began Robert T. Golembiewski his monumental book: 'Public Administration As a Developing Discipline, Part I, Perspectives on Past and Present'. He devoted the book to provide content for Public Administration as a field. 'Content in his case included not only an orientation to analysis, but also the skills and technologies necessary for supporting cumulative traditions of research and application. To quote from the book ' Public administration's early history is studded with symbols testifying to its rich destiny and performance. Not only were all problems ultimately administrative problems, for example, but the very existence of our civilizations depended upon the success with which we learn of to cope with the administrative ultimates.' Woodrow Wilson's influential conclusion who noted, " it is getting harder to run a constitution, than to frame one " did generate its many an echo. Again to quote from the Foreword to the monumental 1937 publication 'Papers on the Science of Administration' by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, " if those who are concerned scientifically with the phenomena of getting things done through cooperative human effort will proceed along these lines we may expect in time to construct a valid and accepted theory of administration. " The confidence of the first half of the 20 th century, however, did not last long. " For a variety of reasons, " Frederick Mosher concluded, " public administration stands in danger of … senescence. " Frederick Mosher further emphasized the crisis of identity concern soon thereafter: 'More is now known about public administration than was the case twenty years ago. But there is a great deal more to know. There are more depths to probe than were then visualized, and more different perspectives from which to start the probing. This field need bow to no other in respect to its sophistication about its subject matter. But such sophistication can senesce into mere dilettantism unless it is grounded in premises and hypotheses that are in some degree ordered and tested and that are continuously refreshed with new data and experience.' Φ The author a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service-the premier Civil Service of India is presently working as Additional Financial Advisor and Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence in the Government of India. Earlier till recently he was working as Secretary Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh and prior to that as Member (Finance & Accounts) UP State Electricity Board. He was the key person in the UP government's team assigned with the task of structuring and negotiations of first ever stand-alone programme loan to a sub national government by the World Bank. He has vast experience of serving in the various field level Public Administration positions, PSUs and at the policy formulation levels in the secretariat. The views expressed here, however, are entirely his own and in no way should be construed to represent the organization / the government he happen to be serving/have served. In this apparently visible two-part article, the first part is devoted to capture the discipline of public administration as seen by the masters of yore and is based largely on the works of Robert T. Golembiewski. The second part of course is what may be euphemistically called the recipe of the author.