Eras of Public Administration

Why Study the Evolution of Public Administration?

Understanding the past helps us navigate the present:

• Current practices evolved from specific historical contexts
• Each era responded to real problems and limitations of the previous approach
• Modern public administration blends elements from all eras

Your agencies today reflect this evolution:

• Police departments, courts, and corrections all show traces of different eras

Five Eras of Public Administration

The Timeline

1. Old Public Administration (1880s-1960s): Efficiency and hierarchy
   
2. New Public Administration (1960s-1980s): Equity and social justice
   
3. New Public Management (1980s-2000s): Market-based efficiency
   
4. New Public Service (2000s-present): Citizen-centered democracy
   
5. New Public Governance (2000s-present): Networks and collaboration

Note: These overlap and coexist rather than completely replacing each other

Era 1: Old Public Administration (1880s-1960s)

“There is a science of administration”

Core Principles:

• Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Clear separation of policy and implementation
• Scientific Management: One best way to organize work
• Bureaucratic Hierarchy: Clear chain of command and specialized roles
• Merit-Based Employment: Professional civil service

Key Figures: Woodrow Wilson, Max Weber, Frederick Taylor

Old PA in Action: Criminal Justice Examples

Police Departments:

• Professional policing model: trained officers, standardized procedures
• Clear rank structure (patrol officer → sergeant → lieutenant → captain)
• Specialized units (traffic, detective, administration)

Courts:

• Formal procedures and rules of evidence
• Professional court administrators and clerks
• Standardized case processing systems

Corrections:

• Centralized prison systems with clear hierarchies
• Standardized operating procedures
• Professional staff selection and training

Old PA: Strengths and Problems

What Worked

• Reduced corruption through merit systems
• Increased efficiency and professionalism
• Created predictable, rule-based processes

What Didn’t Work

• Rigidity: Slow to adapt to changing needs
• Dehumanization: People became “cases” or “numbers”
• Unresponsiveness: Difficult for citizens to influence bureaucracy
• Inequality: Equal treatment didn’t address unequal starting points

Era 2: New Public Administration (1960s-1980s)

“Administration is not value-neutral”

The Minnowbrook Challenge (1968): Young scholars challenged Old PA’s assumptions during social upheaval of the 1960s

Core Principles:

• Social Equity: Government should actively reduce inequality
• Democratic Administration: Citizens should participate in decisions
• Representative Bureaucracy: Public employees should reflect community diversity
• Ethical Responsibility: Administrators have moral obligations

New PA in Criminal Justice

Police Departments:

• Community policing initiatives
• Civilian review boards and community oversight
• Efforts to diversify police forces
• Focus on police-community relations

Courts:

• Alternative dispute resolution programs
• Community courts and problem-solving courts
• Victim impact statements and restorative justice
• Efforts to make courts more accessible

Corrections:

• Rehabilitation over punishment emphasis
• Community-based alternatives to incarceration
• Prisoner rights movements and reforms

Era 3: New Public Management (1980s-2000s)

“Government should be run like a business”

Market-Based Reforms:

• Privatization: Contract out government services
• Performance Management: Measure results, not just processes
• Customer Service: Citizens as customers with choices
• Decentralization: Push decisions down to local level
• Competition: Create market-like conditions in government

Key Figures: David Osborne, Ted Gaebler (“Reinventing Government”)

NPM in Criminal Justice

Police Departments:

• CompStat and data-driven policing
• Performance metrics (response times, crime statistics)
• Contracting security services to private companies
• Customer satisfaction surveys

Courts:

• Case processing time standards
• Electronic filing and case management systems
• Performance dashboards and metrics
• Alternative service providers (mediation services)

Corrections:

• Private prison contracts
• Performance-based contracting
• Recidivism reduction incentives
• Cost-per-inmate metrics

NPM: Benefits and Concerns

What Worked

• Improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness
• Better performance measurement
• Enhanced customer service orientation
• Innovation through competition

What Worried Critics

• Democratic values: Market logic vs. democratic accountability
• Equity concerns: Profitable vs. unprofitable services
• Public interest: Short-term efficiency vs. long-term public good
• Employee relations: Reduced job security and professional autonomy

Era 4: New Public Service (2000s-present)

“Serve citizens, not customers”

Democratic Engagement Focus:

• Citizen Participation: Active involvement in governance
• Public Interest: Broader than individual customer satisfaction
• Democratic Values: Accountability, transparency, participation
• Collaborative Leadership: Building coalitions and partnerships
• Long-term Thinking: Sustainable solutions over quick fixes

Key Figures: Janet and Robert Denhardt

Era 5: New Public Governance (2000s-present)

“Nobody governs alone”

Network-Based Approach:

• Multi-sector Partnerships: Government, nonprofits, private sector, citizens
• Collaborative Networks: Shared responsibility and resources
• Co-production: Citizens actively help deliver services
• Digital Governance: Technology-enabled participation
• Adaptive Management: Learning and adjusting through experience

New PS & NPG in Criminal Justice

Police Departments:

• Community policing partnerships with nonprofits
• Collaborative problem-solving with residents
• Mental health crisis intervention teams (police + social workers)
• Neighborhood watch and civilian volunteer programs

Courts:

• Drug courts with treatment providers and community organizations
• Community justice centers
• Restorative justice circles involving victims, offenders, community
• Technology platforms for citizen feedback and participation

How These Eras Coexist Today

Modern police departments might have:

• Old PA: Clear rank structure, standard operating procedures
• New PA: Community policing, diversity initiatives
• NPM: Performance metrics, technology investments
• New PS: Community engagement programs
• NPG: Multi-agency task forces, nonprofit partnerships

The question: How do we balance these different approaches?

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Digital Transformation:

• AI and predictive policing
• Online court proceedings
• Electronic monitoring and supervision

Social Justice and Reform:

• Police accountability and reform movements
• Criminal justice equity initiatives
• Restorative vs. punitive approaches

Collaboration and Networks:

• Regional cooperation on public safety
• Public-private partnerships in service delivery
• Cross-sector approaches to complex problems

Critical Questions for Today

Which era’s approach works best for:

• Building public trust?
• Ensuring efficient service delivery?
• Promoting democratic participation?
• Addressing social inequality?
• Managing complex, multi-jurisdictional problems?

Your perspective: Can these different approaches be successfully combined, or do they fundamentally conflict?

Module 2-2 Summary

Key Takeaways:

• Each era responded to real limitations of previous approaches
• Modern public administration draws from all five eras
• Different situations may call for different approaches
• The field continues evolving in response to new challenges
• Understanding this evolution helps us make better decisions about current practices

Next: Examining specific organizational theories and their applications