Publicness of Public Administration

“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. I’m 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.