global warming

This article is about the effects of global warming and climate change.[2] The effects, or impacts, of climate change may be physical, ecological, social or economic. Evidence of observed climate change includes the instrumental temperature record, rising sea levels, and decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.[3] According to IPCC (2007a:10), "[most] of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in [human greenhouse gas] concentrations". It is predicted that future climate changes will include further global warming (i.e., an upward trend in global mean temperature), sea level rise, and a probable increase in the frequency of some extreme weather events. Signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have agreed to implement policies designed to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Overview Global mean surface temperature difference from the average for 1880-2009 Mean surface temperature change for the period 1999 to 2008 relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980 Over the last hundred years or so, the instrumental temperature record has shown a trend in climate of increased global mean temperature, i.e., global warming. Other observed changes include Arctic shrinkage, Arctic methane release, releases of terrestrial carbon from permafrost regions and Arctic methane release in coastal sediments, and sea level rise.[4][5] Global average temperature is predicted to increase over this century, with a probable increase in frequency of some extreme weather events, and changes in rainfall patterns. Moving from global to regional scales, there is increased uncertainty over how climate will change. The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change.[6] Some of the physical impacts of climate change are irreversible at continental and global scales.[7] With medium confidence, IPCC (2007b:17) concluded that with a global average temperature increase of 1–4°C, (relative to 1990–2000) partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a period of centuries to millennia.[8] Including the possible contribution of partial deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, sea level would rise by 4–6 m or more. The impacts of climate change across world population will not be distributed evenly (Smith et al., 2001:957).[9] Some regions and sectors are expected to experience benefits while others will experience costs. With greater levels of warming (greater than 2–3°C by 2100, relative to 1990 temperature levels), it is very likely that benefits will decline and costs increase (IPCC, 2007b:17). Low-latitude and less-developed areas are probably at the greatest risk from climate change (Schneider et al.., 2007:781).[10] With human systems, adaptation potential for climate change impacts is considerable, although the costs of adaptation are largely unknown and potentially large. In a literature assessment, Schneider et al.. (2007:792) concluded, with high confidence, that climate change would likely result in reduced diversity of ecosystems and the extinction of many species. Definition of climate change This article refers to reports produced by the IPCC. In their usage, "climate change" refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties, and that persists for extended periods, typically decades or longer (IPCC, 2007d:30).[11] The climate change referred to may be due to natural causes or the result of human activity. Physical impacts Main article: Physical impacts of climate change This section describes some physical impacts of climate change. For some of these physical impacts, their effect on social and economic systems are also described. Effects on weather Increasing temperature is likely to lead to increasing precipitation [12][13] but the effects on storms are less clear. Extratropical storms partly depend on the temperature gradient, which is predicted to weaken in the northern hemisphere as the polar region warms more than the rest of the hemisphere.[14] Extreme weather See also: Extreme weather, Tropical cyclone#Global warming, and List of Atlantic hurricane records IPCC (2007a:8) predicted that in the future, over most land areas, the frequency of warm spells or heat waves would very likely increase.[3] Other likely changes are listed below: * Increased areas will be affected by drought * There will be increased intense tropical cyclone activity * There will be increased incidences of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis) Local climate change Main article: Regional effects of global warming The first recorded South Atlantic hurricane, "Catarina", which hit Brazil in March 2004 Regional effects of global warming vary in nature. Some are the result of a generalised global change, such as rising temperature, resulting in local effects, such as melting ice. In other cases, a change may be related to a change in a particular ocean current or weather system. In such cases, the regional effect may be disproportionate and will not necessarily follow the global trend. There are three major ways in which global warming will make changes to regional climate: melting or forming ice, changing the hydrological cycle (of evaporation and precipitation) and changing currents in the oceans and air flows in the atmosphere. The coast can also be considered a region, and will suffer severe impacts from sea level rise. Biogeochemical cycles See also: climate change feedback Climate change may have an effect on the carbon cycle in an interactive "feedback" process . A feedback exists where an initial process triggers changes in a second process that in turn influences the initial process. A positive feedback intensifies the original process, and a negative feedback reduces it (IPCC, 2007d:78).[11] Models suggest that the interaction of the climate system and the carbon cycle is one where the feedback effect is positive (Schneider et al.., 2007:792).[10] Using the A2 SRES emissions scenario, Schneider et al.. (2007:789) found that this effect led to additional warming by 2100, relative to the 1990-2000 period, of 0.1 to 1.5 °C. This estimate was made with high confidence. The climate projections made in the IPCC Forth Assessment Report of 1.1 to 6.4 °C account for this feedback effect. On the other hand, with medium confidence, Schneider et al.. (2007) commented that additional releases of GHGs were possible from permafrost, peat lands, wetlands, and large stores of marine hydrates at high latitudes. Glacier retreat and disappearance Main article: Retreat of glaciers since 1850 A map of the change in thickness of mountain glaciers since 1970. Thinning in orange and red, thickening in blue. IPCC (2007a:5) found that, on average, mountain glaciers and snow cover had decreased in both the northern and southern hemispheres.[3] This widespread decrease in glaciers and ice caps has contributed to observed sea level rise. With very high or high confidence, IPCC (2007d:11) made a number of predictions relating to future changes in glaciers:[11] * Mountainous areas in Europe will face glacier retreat * In Latin America, changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers will significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture, and energy production * In Polar regions, there will be reductions in glacier extent and the thickness of glaciers. Oceans The role of the oceans in global warming is a complex one. The oceans serve as a sink for carbon dioxide, taking up much that would otherwise remain in the atmosphere, but increased levels of CO2 have led to ocean acidification. Furthermore, as the temperature of the oceans increases, they become less able to absorb excess CO2. Global warming is projected to have a number of effects on the oceans. Ongoing effects include rising sea levels due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and warming of the ocean surface, leading to increased temperature stratification. Other possible effects include large-scale changes in ocean circulation. Acidification Main article: Ocean acidification Dissolving CO2 in seawater increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and Wickett (2003) placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.[15] Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units (on the logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 30% increase in H+), and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units (more than doubling ocean H+ concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[15] [16][17] Oxygen depletion The amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans may decline, with adverse consequences for ocean life.[18][19] Sea level rise Main article: Current sea level rise IPCC (2007a:5) reported that since 1961, global average sea level had risen at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr.[3] Between 1993 and 2003, the rate increased above the previous period to 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr. IPCC (2007a) were uncertain whether the increase in rate from 1993 to 2003 was due to natural variations in sea level over the time period, or whether it reflected an increase in the underlying long-term trend. IPCC (2007a:13, 14) projected sea level rise to the end of the 21st century using the SRES emission scenarios. Across the six SRES marker scenarios, sea level was projected to rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.1 to 23.2 inches). This projection was for the time period 2090-2099, with the increase in level relative to average sea levels over the 1980-1999 period. Due to a lack of scientific understanding, this sea level rise estimate does not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets (see the section on abrupt or irreversible changes). Temperature rise From 1961 to 2003, the global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10 °C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. There is variability both year-to-year and over longer time scales, with global ocean heat content observations showing high rates of warming for 1991 to 2003, but some cooling from 2003 to 2007.[20] The temperature of the Antarctic Southern Ocean rose by 0.17 °C (0.31 °F) between the 1950s and the 1980s, nearly twice the rate for the world's oceans as a whole [21]. As well as having effects on ecosystems (e.g. by melting sea ice, affecting algae that grow on its underside), warming reduces the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.[citation needed] Social systems Main article: Climate change, industry and society Food supply Main article: Climate change and agriculture See also: Food security, Food vs fuel, and 2007–2008 world food price crisis Climate change will impact agriculture and food production around the world due to: the effects of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, altered precipitation and transpiration regimes, increased frequency of extreme events, and modified weed, pest, and pathogen pressure (Easterling et al.., 2007:282).[22] In general, low-latitude areas are at most risk of having decreased crop yields (Schneider et al.., 2007:790).[10] With low to medium confidence, Schneider et al.. (2007:787) concluded that for about a 1 to 3°C global mean temperature increase (by 2100, relative to the 1990-2000 average level) there would be productivity decreases for some cereals in low latitudes, and productivity increases in high latitudes. With medium confidence, global production potential was predicted to: * increase up to around 3°C, * very likely decrease above about 3 to 4°C. Most of the studies on global agriculture assessed by Schneider et al.. (2007:790) had not incorporated a number of critical factors, including changes in extreme events, or the spread of pests and diseases. Studies had also not considered the development of specific practices or technologies to aid adaptation. Health Human beings are exposed to climate change through changing weather patterns (temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise and more frequent extreme events) and indirectly through changes in water, air and food quality and changes in ecosystems, agriculture, industry and settlements and the economy (Confalonieri et al.., 2007:393).[23] According to a literature assessment by Confalonieri et al.. (2007:393), the effects of climate change to date have been small, but are projected to progressively increase in all countries and regions. With high confidence, Confalonieri et al.. (2007:393) concluded that climate change had altered the seasonal distribution of some allergenic pollen species. With medium confidence, they concluded that climate change had: * altered the distribution of some infectious disease vectors * increased heatwave-related deaths With high confidence, IPCC (2007d:48) projected that:[11] * the health status of millions of people would be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to high concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases. * climate change would bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa. Overall, IPCC (2007d:48) expected that benefits would be outweighed by negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries. With very high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007:393) concluded that economic development was an important component of possible adaptation to climate change. Economic growth on its own, however, was not judged to be sufficient to insulate the world's population from disease and injury due to climate change. The manner in which economic growth occurs was judged to be important, along with how the benefits of growth are distributed in society. Examples of other important factors in determining the health of populations were listed as: education, health care, and public-health infrastructure.

Friday, December 17, 2010


Public administration is the implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for this work. Public administration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public administration is both an academic discipline and a field of practice; the latter is depicted in this picture of US federal public servants at a meeting.
Public administration is the implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for this work.[1] As a "field of inquiry with a diverse scope" its "fundamental to advance management and policies so that government can function." [2] Some of the various definitions which have been offered for the term are: "the management of public programs";[3] the "translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day";[4] and "the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies themselves, the various inputs that have produced them, and the inputs necessary to produce alternative policies." [5]
Public administration is "centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct" [6] Many unelected public servants can be considered to be public administrators, including police officers, municipal budget analysts, HR benefits administrators, city managers, Census analysts, and cabinet secretaries.[citation needed] Public administrators are public servants working in public departments and agencies, at all levels of government.[7]
In the US, civil servants and academics such as Woodrow Wilson promoted American civil service reform in the 1880s, moving public administration into academia.[8] However, "until the mid-20th century and the dissemination of the German sociologist Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy" there was not "much interest in a theory of public administration." [9] The field is multidisciplinary in character; one of the various proposals for public administration's sub-fields sets out five pillars, including human resources, organizational theory, policy analysis and statistics, budgeting, and ethics.[10]
• 1 Definitions
• 2 History
o 2.1 Antiquity to the 19th century
o 2.2 US in the 1940s
 2.2.1 Post-World War II to the 1970s
o 2.3 1980s-1990s
o 2.4 Late 1990s-2000s
• 3 Core branches
• 4 Decision-making models
o 4.1 Niskanen's budget-maximizing
o 4.2 Dunleavy's bureau-shaping
• 5 As an academic field
o 5.1 Comparative public administration
o 5.2 Master's degrees
o 5.3 Doctoral degrees
o 5.4 Notable scholars
• 6 International public administration
• 7 See also
o 7.1 Societies for public administration
• 8 References
• 9 External links
• 10 Suggested reading

[edit] Definitions

Even in the digital age, public servants tend to work with both paper documents and computer files (pictured here is Stephen C. Dunn, Deputy Comptroller for the US Navy)
One scholar claims that "public administration has no generally accepted definition", because the "scope of the subject is so great and so debatable that it is easier to explain than define".[11] Public administration is a field of study (i.e., a discipline) and an occupation. There is much disagreement about whether the study of public administration can properly be called a discipline, largely because of the debate over whether public administration is a subfield of political science of a subfield of administrative science".[12] Scholar Donald Kettl is among those who view public administration "as a subfield within political science".[13]
The North American Industry Classification System definition of the Public Administration (NAICS 91) sector states that public administration "... comprises establishments primarily engaged in activities of a governmental nature, that is, the enactment and judicial interpretation of laws and their pursuant regulations, and the administration of programs based on them". This includes "Legislative activities, taxation, national defence, public order and safety, immigration services, foreign affairs and international assistance, and the administration of government programs are activities that are purely governmental in nature".[14]
[edit] History
[edit] Antiquity to the 19th century
Dating back to Antiquity, Pharaohs, kings and emperors have required pages, treasurers, and tax collectors to administer the practical business of government. Prior to the 19th century, staffing of most public administrations was rife with nepotism, favoritism, and political patronage, which was often referred to as a "spoils system". Public administrators have been the "eyes and ears" of rulers until relatively recently. In medieval times, the abilities to read and write, add and subtract were as dominated by the educated elite as public employment. Consequently, the need for expert civil servants whose ability to read and write formed the basis for developing expertise in such necessary activities as legal record-keeping, paying and feeding armies and levying taxes. As the European Imperialist age progressed and the militarily powers extended their hold over other continents and people, the need for a sophisticated public administration grew.
The eighteenth-century noble, King Frederick William I of Prussia, created professorates in Cameralism in an effort to train a new class of public administrators. The universities of Frankfurt an der Oder and University of Hallewere Prussian institutions emphasizing economic and social disciplines, with the goal of societal reform. Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi was the most well-known professor of Cameralism. Thus, from a Western European perspective, Classic, Medieval, and Enlightenment-era scholars formed the foundation of the discipline that has come to be called public administration.
Lorenz von Stein, an 1855 German professor from Vienna, is considered the founder of the science of public administration in many parts of the world. In the time of Von Stein, public administration was considered a form of administrative law, but Von Stein believed this concept too restrictive. Von Stein taught that public administration relies on many prestablished disciplines such as sociology, political science, administrative law and public finance. He called public administration an integrating science, and stated that public administrators should be concerned with both theory and practice. He argued that public administration is a science because knowledge is generated and evaluated according to the scientific method.
Modern American public administration is an extension of democratic governance, justified by classic and liberal philosophers of the western world ranging from Aristotle to John Locke[15] to Thomas Jefferson[16][17]

Woodrow Wilson‎
In the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson is considered the father of public administration. He first formally recognized public administration in an 1887 article entitled "The Study of Administration." The future president wrote that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy."[18] Wilson was more influential to the science of public administration than Von Stein, primarily due to an article Wilson wrote in 1887 in which he advocated four concepts:
• Separation of politics and administration
• Comparative analysis of political and private organizations
• Improving efficiency with business-like practices and attitudes toward daily operations
• Improving the effectiveness of public service through management and by training civil servants, merit-based assessment
The separation of politics and administration has been the subject of lasting debate. The different perspectives regarding this dichotomy contribute to differentiating characteristics of the suggested generations of public administration.
[edit] US in the 1940s
The separation of politics and administration advocated by Wilson continues to play a significant role in public administration today. However, the dominance of this dichotomy was challenged by second generation scholars, beginning in the 1940s. Luther Gulick's fact-value dichotomy was a key contender for Wilson's proposed politics-administration dichotomy. In place of Wilson's first generation split, Gulick advocated a "seamless web of discretion and interaction".[19]

Luther Gulick (1892–1993) was an expert on public administration.
Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick are two second-generation scholars. Gulick, Urwick, and the new generation of administrators built on the work of contemporary behavioral, administrative, and organizational scholars including Henri Fayol, Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Paul Appleby, Frank Goodnow, and Willam Willoughby. The new generation of organizational theories no longer relied upon logical assumptions and generalizations about human nature like classical and enlightened theorists.
Gulick developed a comprehensive, generic theory of organization that emphasized the scientific method, efficiency, professionalism, structural reform, and executive control. Gulick summarized the duties of administrators with an acronym; POSDCORB, which stands for planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Fayol developed a systematic, 14-point, treatment of private management. Second-generation theorists drew upon private management practices for administrative sciences. A single, generic management theory bleeding the borders between the private and the public sector was thought to be possible. With the general theory, the administrative theory could be focused on governmental organizations.
[edit] Post-World War II to the 1970s
The mid-1940s theorists challenged Wilson and Gulick. The politics-administration dichotomy remained the center of criticism. In the 1960s and 1970s, government itself came under fire as ineffective, inefficient, and largely a wasted effort. The costly American intervention in Vietnam along with domestic scandals including the bugging of Democratic party headquarters (the 1974 Watergate scandal) are two examples of self-destructive government behavior that alienated citizens.

The costly Vietnam War alienated US citizens from their government (pictured is Operation Linebacker II, a US bombing operation in December 1972)
There was a call by citizens for efficient administration to replace ineffective, wasteful bureaucracy. Public administration would have to distance itself from politics to answer this call and remain effective. Elected officials supported these reforms. The Hoover Commission, chaired by University of Chicago professor Louis Brownlow, to examine reorganization of government. Brownlow subsequently founded the Public Administration Service (PAS) at the university, an organization which has provided consulting services to all levels of government until the 1970s.[citation needed]
[edit] 1980s-1990s
In the late 1980s, yet another generation of public administration theorists began to displace the last. The new theory, which came to be called New Public Management, was proposed by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book Reinventing Government.[20] The new model advocated the use of private sector-style models, organizational ideas and values to improve the efficiency and service-orientation of the public sector. During the Clinton Administration (1992–2000), Vice President Al Gore adopted and reformed federal agencies using NPM approaches. In the 1990s, new public management became prevalent throughout the bureaucracies of the US, the UK and, to a lesser extent, in Canada.
Some modern authors define NPM as a combination of splitting large bureaucracies into smaller, more fragmented agencies, encouraging competition between different public agencies, and encouraging competition between public agencies and private firms and using economic incentives lines (e.g., performance pay for senior executives or user-pay models).[21] NPM treats individuals as "customers" or "clients" (in the private sector sense), rather than as citizens.[22]
Some critics argue that the New Public Management concept of treating people as "customers" rather than "citizens" is an inappropriate borrowing from the private sector model, because businesses see customers are a means to an end (profit), rather than as the proprietors of government (the owners), opposed to merely the customers of a business (the patrons). In New Public Management, people are viewed as economic units not democratic participants. Nevertheless, the model is still widely accepted at all levels of government and in many OECD nations.
[edit] Late 1990s-2000s
In the late 1990s, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed a new public service model in response to the dominance of NPM.[23] A successor to NPM is digital era governance, focusing on themes of reintegrating government responsibilities, needs-based holism (executing duties in cursive ways), and digitalization (exploiting the transformational capabilities of modern IT and digital storage).One example of this is, an Australian non-for-profit eDemocracy project which invites politicians, senior public servants, academics, business people and other key stakeholders to engage in high-level policy debate.
Another new public service model is what has been called New Public Governance, an approach which includes a centralization of power; an increased number, role and influence of partisan-political staff; personal-politicization of appointments to the senior public service; and, the assumption that the public service is promiscuously partisan for the government of the day [24]
[edit] Core branches
In academia, the fields of public administration, consists of a number of sub-fields. Scholars have proposed a number of different sets of sub-fields. One of the proposed models uses five "pillars":[25]
• Human resource management is an in-house structure that ensures that public service staffing is done in an unbiased, ethical and values-based manner. The basic functions of the HR system are employee benefits, employee health care, compensation, etc.
• Organizational Theory in Public Administration is the study of the structure of governmental entities and the many particulars inculcated in them.
• Ethics in public administration serves as a normative approach to decision making.
• Policy analysis serves as an empirical approach to decision making.
• Public budgeting is the activity within a government that seeks to allocate scarce resources among unlimited demands.
[edit] Decision-making models

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2010)

Given the array of duties public administrators find themselves performing, the professional administrator might refer to a theoretical framework from which he or she might work. Indeed, many public and private administrative scholars have devised and modified decision-making models.
[edit] Niskanen's budget-maximizing
In 1971, Professor William Niskanen proposed a rational choice variation which he called the "budget-maximizing model". He claimed that rational bureaucrats will universally seek to increase the budgets of their units (to enhance their stature), thereby contributing to state growth and increased public expenditure. Niskanen served on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors; his model underpinned what has been touted as curtailed public spending and increased privatization. However, budgeted expenditures and the growing deficit during the Reagan administration is evidence of a different reality. A range of pluralist authors have critiqued Niskanen's universalist approach. These scholars have argued that officials tend also to be motivated by considerations of the public interest.
[edit] Dunleavy's bureau-shaping
The bureau-shaping model, a modification of Niskanen, holds that rational bureaucrats only maximize the part of their budget that they spend on their own agency's operations or give to contractors and interest groups. Groups that are able to organize a "flowback" of benefits to senior officials would, according to this theory, receive increased budgetary attention. For instance, rational officials will get no benefit from paying out larger welfare checks to millions of low-income citizens because this does not serve a bureaucrats' goals. Accordingly, one might instead expect a jurisdiction to seek budget increases for defense and security purposes in place of domestic social programming. If we refer back to Reagan once again, Dunleavy's bureau shaping model accounts for the alleged decrease in the "size" of government while spending did not, in fact, decrease. Domestic entitlement programming was financially de-emphasized for military research and personnel.
[edit] As an academic field
See also: Master of Public Administration and Doctor of Public Administration
In the United States, the academic field of public administration draws heavily on political science and administrative law. Some MPA programs include economics courses to give students a background in microeconomic issues (markets, rationing mechanisms, etc) and macroeconomic issues (e.g., national debt). Scholars such as John A. Rohr write of a long history behind the constitutional legitimacy of government bureaucracy. In Europe (notably in Britain and Germany), the divergence of the field from other disciplines can be traced to the 1720s continental university curriculum. Formally, official academic distinctions were made in the 1910s and 1890s, respectively.
The goals of the field of public administration are related to the democratic values of improving equality, justice, security, efficiency, effectiveness of public services usually in a non-profit, non-taxable venue; business administration, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with taxable profit. For a field built on concepts (accountability, governance, decentralization, clientele), these concepts are often ill-defined and typologies often ignore certain aspects of these concepts (Dubois & Fattore 2009).[26]
One minor tradition that the more specific term "public management" refers to ordinary, routine or typical management concerns, in the context of achieving public good. Others argue that "public management" refers to a newer, market-driven perspective on the operation of government. This latter view is often called "new public management" by its advocates. New Public Management represents a reform attempt, aimed at reemphasizing the professional nature of the field[citation needed]. This will replace the academic, moral or disciplinary emphasis. Some theorists advocate a bright line differentiation of the professional field from related academic disciplines like political science and sociology; it remains interdisciplinary in nature.
One public administration scholar, Donald Kettl, argues that "...public administration sits in a disciplinary backwater", because "...[f]or the last generation, scholars have sought to save or replace it with fields of study like implementation, public management, and formal bureaucratic theory".[27] Kettl states that "public administration, as a subfield within political struggling to define its role within the discipline".[28] He notes two problems with public administration: it "has seemed methodologically to lag behind" and "the field’s theoretical work too often seems not to define it"-indeed, "some of the most interesting recent ideas in public administration have come from outside the field".[29]
Public administration theory is the domain in which discussions of the meaning and purpose of government, the role of bureaucracy in supporting democratic governments, budgets, governance, and public affairs takes place. In recent years, public administration theory has periodically connoted a heavy orientation toward critical theory and postmodern philosophical notions of government, governance, and power. However, many public administration scholars support a classic definition of the term emphasizing constitutionality, public service, bureaucratic forms of organization, and hierarchical government.
[edit] Comparative public administration
Comparative public administration is defined as the study of administrative systems in a comparative fashion or the study of public administration in other countries.[30] Another definition for "comparative public administration" is the "quest for patterns and regularities in administrative action and behavior".[31] There have been several issues which have hampered the development of comparative public administration, including: the major differences between Western countries and developing countries; the lack of curriculum on this subfield in public administration programs; and the lack of success in developing theoretical models which can be scientifically tested.[32]
Comparative public administration studies can compare different types of states at the same time, such as religious states vs. secular states or authoritarian states vs. democratic states. Even though public administration systems vary a great deal, there are some common elements which they all share which can be compared, such as the recruitment of bureaucrats and common programs which all governments have (e.g., a taxation regime) and common roles (e.g., rule-making).[33]
[edit] Master's degrees

The Knapp-Sanders Building, the home of the School of Government at the University of North Carolina.
As a field, public administration can be compared to business administration, and the master of public administration (MPA) viewed as similar to a master of business administration (MBA) for those wishing to pursue governmental or non-profit careers. An MPA often emphasizes substantially different ethical and sociological criteria that are traditionally secondary to that of profit for business administrators. The MPA is related to similar graduate level government studies including MA programs in public affairs, public policy, and political science. Differences often include program emphases on policy analysis techniques or other topical focuses such as the study of international affairs as opposed to focuses on constitutional issues such as separation of powers, administrative law, problems of governance and power, and participatory democracy.
[edit] Doctoral degrees
There are two types of doctoral degrees in public administration: the Doctor of Public Administration and the Ph.D. in Public Administration. The Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) is an applied-research doctoral degree in the field of public administration, focusing on practice. The DPA requires a dissertation and significant coursework beyond the Masters level. Upon successful completion of the doctoral requirements, the title of "Doctor" is awarded and the post-nominals of D.P.A. are often added. Some universities use the Ph.D. as their doctoral degree in public administration (e.g., Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada).
[edit] Notable scholars
Notable scholars of public administration have come from a range of fields. In the period before public administration existed as its own independent discipline, scholars contributing to the field came from economics, sociology, management, political science, administrative law, and, other related fields. More recently, scholars from public administration and public policy have contributed important studies and theories. For a longer list of academics and theorists, see the List of notable public administration scholars article.
[edit] International public administration
There are several organizations that are active. The oldest is the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA). Based in Brussels, Belgium, IASIA is an association of organizations and individuals whose activities and interests focus on public administration and management. The activities of its members include education and training of administrators and managers. It is the only worldwide scholarly association in the field of public management.[34] Also the International Committee of the US-based National Association of School of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) has developed a number of relationships around the world. They include sub regional and National forums like CLAD, INPAE and NISPAcee, APSA, ASPA.[35]
The Center for Latin American Administration for Development (CLAD), based in Caracas, Venezuela, this regional network of schools of public administration set up by the governments in Latin America is the oldest in the region.[36] The Institute is a founding member and played a central role in organizing the Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE). Created in 2000, this regional network of schools is unique in that it is the only organization to be composed of institutions from North and Latin America and the Caribbean working in public administration and policy analysis. It has more than 49 members from top research schools in various countries throughout the hemisphere.[37]
NISPAcee is a network of experts, scholars and practitioners who work in the field of public administration in Central and Eastern Europe, including the Russian Federation and the Caucasus and Central Asia.[38] The US public administration and political science associations like NASPA, American Political Science Association (APSA)[39] and American Society of Public Administration (ASPA).[40] These organizations have helped to create the fundamental establishment of modern public administration.
[edit] See also

Book:Public administration

Books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.
• Administration (government)
• Administrative law
• Budgeting
• Bureaucracy
• Civil society
• Doctor of Public Administration
• Municipal government
• Politics
• Professional administration
• Public management — focusing on the efficiency and effectiveness of a government
• Public administration theory
• Public policy
• Public policy schools
• Theories of administration
o Max Weber
[edit] Societies for public administration
• American Society for Public Administration
• Chinese Public Administration Society
• Institute for Public Administration in Canada
• Dutch Association for Public Administration
• Royal Institute for Public Administration
• Korea Institute of Public Administration
[edit] References

Constructs such as ibid. and loc. cit. are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title.

1. ^ Random House Unabridged Dictionary
2. ^ Handbook of Public Administration. Eds Jack Rabin, W. Bartley Hildreth, and Gerard J. Miller. 1989: Marcel Dekker, NY. p. iii
3. ^ Robert and Janet Denhardt. Public Administration: An Action Orientation. 6th Ed. 2009: Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont CA.
4. ^ Kettl, Donald and James Fessler. 2009. The Politics of the Administrative Process. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
5. ^ Jerome B. McKinney and Lawrence C. Howard. Public Administration: Balancing Power and Accountability. 2nd Ed. 1998: Praeger Publishing, Westport, CT. p. 62
6. ^ UN Economic and Social Council. Committee of Experts on Public Administration. Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and public administration. 2006
7. ^ Ibid
8. ^ Wilson, Woodrow. June, 1887. The Study of Administration, Political Science Quarterly 2.
9. ^ Public administration. (2010) In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
10. ^ Shafritz, J.M., A.C. Hyde. 2007. Classics of Public Administration. Wadsworth: Boston.
11. ^ Kernaghan, Kenneth. "Public administration" in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available online at: August 20, 2010.
12. ^ Kernaghan, Kenneth. "Public administration" in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available online at: August 20, 2010.
13. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: Accessed on October 25, 2010.
14. ^ Definition Public Administration (NAICS 91). Available online at: Accessed October 25, 2010
15. ^ Second Treatise on Government
16. ^ Declaration of Independence
17. ^ Ryan, M., Mejia, B., and Georgiev, M. (Ed). 2010. AM Gov 2010. McGraw Hill: New York.
18. ^ Wilson, W. 1887.
19. ^ Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. page 80
20. ^ Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May – Jun., 1996), pp. 247–255
21. ^ Patrick Dunleavy, Helen Margetts et al, 'New public management is dead: Long live digital era governance',Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, (July 2006).
22. ^ Diane Stone, (2008) 'Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks,' Journal of Policy Sciences.
23. ^ Denhardt , Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt (2000). "The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering." Public Administration Review 60(6)
24. ^ Aucoin, Peter (2008). New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping with the New Political Governance in Canada, Conference on "New Public Management and the Quality of Government", SOG and the Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 13–15 November 2008, p.14.
25. ^ Shafritz and Hyde. 2009.
26. ^ Dubois, Hans F. W.; Fattore, Giovanni (2009). International Journal of Public Administration. 32. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 704–727. doi:10.1080/01900690902908760. "The field of public administration knows many concepts. By focusing on one such concept, this research shows how definitions can be deceptive..."
27. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: Accessed on October 25, 2010.
28. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: Accessed on October 25, 2010.
29. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: Accessed on October 25, 2010.
30. ^ Haroon A. Khan. Introduction to Public Administration. University Press of America, 2008. P. 33
31. ^ Haroon A. Khan. Introduction to Public Administration. University Press of America, 2008. p. 33
32. ^ Haroon A. Khan. Introduction to Public Administration. University Press of America, 2008 p. 34
33. ^
34. ^
35. ^
36. ^
37. ^
38. ^
39. ^
40. ^
Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G. (2009), 'Definitions and typologies in public administration research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of Public Administration, 32(8): pp. 704–727.
[edit] External links
• Gov Monitor: A public administration, policy and public sector website
• Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net) : This is an international network of professionals concerned with the advancement of public administration theory.
• United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN): A body which aims to establish an Internet-based network that links regional and national institutions devoted to public administration.
[edit] Suggested reading
• Smith, Kevin B. and Licari, Michael J. Public Administration — Power and Politics in the Fourth Branch of Government, ISBN 1-933220-04-X
• White,Jay D. and Guy B. Adams. Research in public administration: reflections on theory and practice‎.1994.
v • d • e
Civil Service in the Executive Branch of Government

Concepts Government agency • Bureaucracy • Bureaucrat • Public administration • Public services • Public policy • Public sector

Terminology Undersecretary • Commissioner • Diplomatic service

civil services Australia • Bangladesh • Brazil • Canada • China • European Union • France • Germany (Beamter) • Hong Kong • India • Ireland • Italy • Japan • Malaysia • New Zealand • Nigeria • Northern Ireland • Pakistan • Singapore • Sri Lanka • United Kingdom • United States

Categories Government occupations • Civil service by country

See also: Civil service reform in developing countries • Imperial examination (Ancient China)

Categories: Public administration | Social sciences | Public policy | Subfields of political science | Management science | Management education
• Log in / create account
• Article
• Discussion
• Read
• Edit
• View history

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Asturianu
• Català
• Česky
• Deutsch
• Eesti
• Ελληνικά
• Español
• Euskara
• Français
• Furlan
• Galego
• 한국어
• हिन्दी
• Bahasa Indonesia
• Italiano
• עברית
• Lietuvių
• Magyar
• Nederlands
• 日本語
• Polski
• Português
• Русский
• Simple English
• Suomi
• Svenska
• தமிழ்
• ไทย
• Türkçe
• Українська
• Tiếng Việt
• Žemaitėška
• 中文
• This page was last modified on 13 December 2010 at 16:13.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

The overall objective of this research paper is to compare and contrast public administration versus private administration, as well as their similarities and differences. To begin with, I should like to proffer a definition of both private administration and public administration. To a larger extent, it is the belief of this author that there are more similarities than differences when considering private administration versus public administration. At the same time, I will attempt to identify these largely in terms of their similarities and differences. Public administration may apply to a broad variety of services. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, public administration is defined as the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization; the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency; and finally, a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principle political objective offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs. The Me..
Most authors differentiate public administration and private administration by educational institutions (public schools vs. private schools). Although it's a good example to provide a comprehensive analysis between the two sectors, I found it not the quintessence for a comparative analysis. Historically, in our country, public schools have a much higher quality education than private schools, and studying economics and public administration, it is not just the nature of bureaucracies, nor the scope of public administration that the case today was reversed. While some authors identified over a dozen factors that differentiates public to private administration, Denhardt only speaks of the three fundamental differences between the two. In this paper, I would elaborate Denhardt's three points since, together with economist Boadway's Difference between Public and Private Sector, I found these as the most undisputable and concrete comparisons.
The most apparent difference between the two sectors is their organizing principles or goal. (Denhardt) While private administration has a definite mission, which is the pursuit of profit or stability or growth of revenues, public administration, on the other hand, has ambiguous purposes. Furthermore, the dilemma in ambiguity of purposes is exacerbated by too many unnecessary and inoperable agencies, with purposes that overlap and bloated bureaucracies. One might say that the goal of public administration is to enact public policies, but the overlapping and the main ambiguity of most of these policies, and the vagueness of the enactment of these policies make public administration's purpose to be more ambiguous. Nevertheless, the fact that public institutions are not profit driven, should not lead us to believe that public sector employees and managers are not concerned about financial matters. As is the case with private companies, public sector units and organizations fight for funding and influence.
Another factor that makes the public sector different from the private is decision making. (Denhradt) In public administration, the decision must be and should be pluralistic. The founding fathers intentionally created a democratic republic where all key decisions are made in politicized environment. This allows for maximum participation: open debate, multiple veto points - a decision making hierarchy where consensus must be achieved at each level, ideally, an informed decision. While private administration's decision-making is much more simple- it's monopolistic or close to monopolistic. This type of decision-making would avoid any conflicts in interest; hence, the goal is clearly defined.
The visibility of public administrators is another notable difference between public and private sector. While a manager in a private business may work in relative obscurity, the public manager must operate in the public eye. His or her actions are constantly subjected to public scrutiny. (Denhardt) The publicness of the work of the public manager doesn't end in merely carrying out public policy, the public manager has to respond to the demands of the public. Denhardt speaks of the "inevitable tension" between efficiency and responsiveness, the pressure to manage effectively and to be simultaneously responsive to public concerns. This pressure often leaves public organizations in a "no-win" situation, trying to serve a public that demands effective government but balks at paying for it (taxes). The public also demands accountability in government, an assurance that those who formulate, implement and administer public programs will act responsibly.
One quality that makes public sector different from private is in the form of unit analysis. (Boadway) Apart from publicly owned-companies, most public institutions are part of a larger chain of command and control where it is harder to draw a line between the different parts of the system- and where legal frameworks provide little help in this. For instance: public agencies- like research councils or directorates of health- interact closely with ministries as well as subordinate institution and "users". The innovation activities in these institutions are heavily influenced by decisions made above and below the chain of commands. The closest parallel to private sector will be large conglomerates or multinational companies. The complex system of organizations with various (and to some extent conflicting) tasks, is one of the reasons for the inefficiency of public administration. Although, some authors in public administration, such Woodrow Wilson in The Study of Public Administration, where he reiterated that the evolution of public administration together with its complex system and increasing number of bureaucracies is to complement the population growth, but a population with sufficient number of agencies to manage them and with high marginal productivity for each public employee, is better than a bloated bureaucracy with little or zero marginal productivity, and worse, unnecessary and redundant purpose.
Lastly, although political aspect is both apparent in public and private sector, political aspect is more important in the public than in the private sector. Policy decisions normally affect companies directly and indirectly, through laws, regulations and financial support. The public sector is at least formally controlled by elected politicians. The intimate link between this governance dimension and funding of current expenses of the activities implies a very strong link between ownership and control on the one hand and the growth strategies of the subsidiary organizations.
Article Source:

Ads by Google
School Vouchers
Enacting school vo

• Family
• Food
• Health
• Home
• Money
• Style
• More

1. Home
2. » Legal
3. » Other Areas of Law
4. » Public Records
5. » Public Vs. Private Administration Data
Top 5 To Try
• Wireless Network Security Training
• Private Company Vs. Public Company
• Private Vs. Public Traded Company
• Texas Private Security Administration Rules
• Public Defender vs. Private Attorney
Public Vs. Private Administration Data
By MichelleS, eHow Contributor
updated: November 23, 2010
Public administration encompasses the individuals and processes that carry out laws, rules, and regulations that are issued by legislatures or other elected officials. Private administration refers to the individuals and processes that carry out the manufacturing, marketing, retailing, and providing of goods and services in exchange for payment. Public administration must handle data different from private administrations.
Federal Administration Data
1. The Freedom of Information Act states that federal government data is subject to full or partial disclosure, depending on the type of information and government agency. An individual may request in writing federal administration data and the public administration responsible for that data must provide it within 10 days. However, the data is off limits if it involves national security or personal information.
State and Local Administration Data
2. State and local government enact their own laws regarding public administration data. The main differences between federal, state, and local laws are the time in which the agency must provide data and fees charged.
Private Administration Data
3. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to private administration data. Individuals do not have the right to obtain information about a private business or industry. Government agencies require private administrations to report certain data, such as earnings, employee demographics, time records, and other law requirements to the specific government entity. However, the public does not have access to that data.
• Freedom of Information Act
• Milakovich, Michael, E. and Gordon, George, J. (2004). Public Administration in America. Belmont, CA; Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
• The Open Government Guide
Who Can HelpSponsored
• Ask a Lawyer Online Now
• Legally change your name online. Answer a few questions and let LegalZoom help. It is Easy, Fast, and Affordable.
• #1 in ID Theft Protection. LifeLock is the leader in identity theft protection, Enroll Today.
• print
• email
• favorite
• share
• flag
Post a Comment
• print
• email
• favorite
• share

Related Ads
Related Articles & Videos
• Wireless Network Security Training
• Private Company Vs. Public Company
• Private Vs. Public Traded Company
• Texas Private Security Administration Rules
• Public Defender vs. Private Attorney
• Private vs. Commercial Pilots
Partner Center

• Others Also Viewed
o Administrative Assistant Duties in a Private Practice
o How to Reset the Domain Administrator Password in Windows Server 2003
o How to Reset the Administrator Password on a Domain Controller
o How to Change a Local Administrator Password for a Domain Controller
o Public Vs. Private Grant Funding

• Home†
• †
• Article Sitemap

• †

• Sitemap

• How Tos
Copyright © 1999-2010 eHow, Inc. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the eHow Terms of Use † and Privacy Policy †. en-US
† requires javascript

Partner Sites

Distinctions between public administration and private action

Activities such as traffic control, fire-protection services, policing, smoke abatement, the construction or repair of highways, the provision of currency, town and country planning, and the collection of customs and excise duties are usually carried out by governments, whose executive organs are assumed to represent the collective will of the community and to be acting for the common good. It is for this reason that they are given powers not normally conferred on private persons. They may be authorized to infri

No comments:

Post a Comment