I've just joined onlinejobsopen.com & came across this great way of earning extra income from data entry jobs & referring friends. The best part is, it's all free. I thought you might be interested in it!. check it out yourself

I've just joined onlinejobsopen.com & came across this great way of earning extra income from data entry jobs & referring friends. The best part is, it's all free. I thought you might be interested in it!. check it out yourself

mich-land

mich-land

Justice Encyclopedia

Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the concept of justice. For other uses, see Justice (disambiguation).
Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality.[1]

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.[2]
Contents
[hide]

1 Concept of justice
2 Variations of justice
3 Understandings of justice
3.1 Justice as harmony
3.2 Justice as divine command
3.3 Justice as natural law
3.4 Justice as human creation
3.4.1 Justice as authoritative command
3.4.2 Justice as trickery
3.4.3 Justice as mutual agreement
3.5 Justice as a subordinate value
4 Theories of distributive justice
4.1 Egalitarianism
4.2 Giving people what they deserve
4.3 Fairness
4.4 Property rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history
4.5 Welfare-maximization
5 Theories of retributive justice
5.1 Utilitarianism
5.2 Retributivism
5.3 Mixed theories
6 Institutions
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links

[edit] Concept of justice

According to most theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important: [John Rawls] claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[3] Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. Justice has traditionally been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e. with a life in accordance with the cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness has thus been historically and culturally rare and is perhaps chiefly a modern innovation [in western societies].[4]

Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[5] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human."[6] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
[edit] Variations of justice

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[7]

Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim.

Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things — wealth, power, reward, respect — among different people.

Oppressive Law exercises an authoritarian approach to legislation that is "totally unrelated to justice", a tyrannical interpretation of law is one in which the population lives under restriction from unlawful legislation.

Some theorists, such as the classical Greeks and Romans, conceive of justice as a virtue—a property of people, and only derivatively of their actions and the institutions they create. Others emphasize actions or institutions, and only derivatively the people who bring them about. The source of justice has variously been attributed to harmony, divine command, natural law, or human creation.
[edit] Understandings of justice
Justice by Luca Giordano

Understandings of justice differ in each culture, as cultures are dependent on a religion and its ethics that create values which influence the notion of justice. Although there can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, there are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension.
[edit] Justice as harmony
Main article: Republic (dialogue)

In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.[8]
[edit] Justice as divine command
Main article: Divine command theory

Justice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command. Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? A famous paradox called the Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it's right? If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. Some Divine command advocates respond by pointing out that the dilemma is false: goodness is the very nature of God and is necessarily expressed in His commands.
[edit] Justice as natural law
Main article: Natural law

For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.
[edit] Justice as human creation

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans.
[edit] Justice as authoritative command
Injustice by Giotto di Bondone

According to thinkers including Thomas Hobbes, justice is created by public, enforceable, authoritative rules, and injustice is whatever those rules forbid, regardless of their relation to morality. Justice is created, not merely described or approximated, by the command of an absolute sovereign power. This position has some similarities with divine command theory (see above), with the difference that the state (or other authority) replaces God.
[edit] Justice as trickery

In Republic, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people.
Further information: Republic (dialogue), Master-slave morality
[edit] Justice as mutual agreement
Main article: Social contract

According to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’.
[edit] Justice as a subordinate value

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[9]
[edit] Theories of distributive justice
Main article: Distributive justice
Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?
Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?
What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud).

This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.
[edit] Egalitarianism
Main article: Egalitarianism

According to the egalitarian, justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. This basic view can be elaborated in many different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed—wealth, respect, opportunity—and what they are to be distributed equally between—individuals, families, nations, races, species. Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome. It affirms that freedom and justice without equality are hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice.

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie─argumentative or practical─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship.
[edit] Giving people what they deserve

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[10] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.
[edit] Fairness
Main article: A Theory of Justice
J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don’t know who in particular we are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[11]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) liberties and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).
[edit] Property rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history

Robert Nozick's influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).

If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. A pareto efficient transaction is one where at least one party ends up better off and neither party ends up worse off. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone by coercion.
Further information: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Libertarianism, Constitutional economics
[edit] Welfare-maximization
Main article: Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.
[edit] Theories of retributive justice

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:

why punish?
who should be punished?
what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.
[edit] Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can’t be good in itself, for the utilitarian. But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overall good in the long term, in one or more of three ways:

Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare.
Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that ‘bad person’ can mean is ‘person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering) ’. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.
Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[12]
[edit] Retributivism
Main article: Retributive justice

The retributivist will think the utilitarian's argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong, we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual, not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. Retributivism emphasizes retribution – payback – rather than maximization of welfare. Like the theory of distributive justice as giving everyone what they deserve (see above), it links justice with desert. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[13] Despite this criticism, there are numerous differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial, has a scale of appropriateness and corrects a moral wrong, whereas the latter is personal, unlimited in scale, and often corrects a slight.
Further information: Deontological ethics
[edit] Mixed theories

Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. Fore example, Andrew Von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role.
[edit] Institutions
The Justices of the United States Supreme Court with President George W. Bush, October 2005
Main article: Law

In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards — consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes disastrously. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.

Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics, a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon.
[edit] See also

Other pages

Criminal justice
Ethics
Global justice
Injustice
Just war
Just-world phenomenon
Justice (economics)
Morality
Napoleonic code
Rationality
Social justice
Rule of law
Rule according to higher law
Teaching for social justice



Types of justice

Commutative justice
Distributive justice
Restorative justice
Retributive justice
Spatial justice

[edit] References

^ Luban, Law's Blindfold, 23
^ Konow, James. 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories." Journal of Economic Literature 41, no. 4: page 1188
^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3
^ Daston, Lorraine (2008). ""Life, Chance and Life Chances"". Daedalus: 5–14.
^ Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study shows / UCLA Newsroom
^ Nature 425, 297–299 (18 September 2003)
^ Exodus 21.xxiii-xxv.
^ Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
^ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Chapter 5.
^ Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program' in Karl Marx: Selected writings ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977): 564–70, p. 569.
^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.
^ C. L. Ten, ‘Crime and Punishment’ in Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993): 366–72.
^ Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), Chapter 1.

[edit] Further reading

Anthony Duff & David Garland eds, A Reader on Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003)
Brian Barry, Theories of Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989)
C. L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)
Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2004)
David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)
James Konow (2003) "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories", Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), p. 1188-1239
David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006)
Harry Brighouse, Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004)
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
Nicola Lacey, State Punishment (London: Routledge, 1988)
Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV
Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (2nd edition, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006), Part III
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974)
Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969)
Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction (2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)

[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Justice

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:
Distributive justice, by Julian Lamont
Justice as a virtue, by Michael Slote
Punishment, by Hugo Adam Bedau
Justice for the World
United Nations Rule of Law: Informal Justice, on the relationship between informal/community justice, the rule of law and the United Nations
Video:Balkan Justice YouTube

A series of videos on the subject of justice:
/ Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? by Harvard University's Michael Sandel. This is a wonderful series on this subject and from this site you are referred to all 12 episodes as well as to reading materials and comments from participants.

[show]v · d · ePhilosophy
[show]v · d · eSocial and political philosophy
[show]v · d · eEthics
[show]v · d · eJurisprudence
Categories: Justice | Philosophy of law | Political philosophy | Ethical principles

Log in / create account

Article
Discussion

Read
Edit
View history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox
Print/export
Languages

العربية
Bân-lâm-gú
Български
Català
Česky
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Kiswahili
Kreyòl ayisyen
Lietuvių
മലയാളം
मराठी
Nederlands
日本語
Nouormand
Occitan
Polski
Português
Русский
Scots
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
తెలుగు
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
ייִדיש
中文

This page was last modified on 2 February 2011 at 03:21.
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

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

COMPARE AND CONTRAST PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCILENCS

PRESENTER:

PRESENTED TO: MR OTIENO

REG.NO.

COURSE CODE: CPS 241

COURSE TITLE: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

TOPIC: COMPARE AND CONTRAST PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
ADMINISTRATION

The term public administration has been defined differently by different scholars since it is a field of inquiry with a diverse scope. For instance, Woodrow Wilson defined public administration as, a systematic and efficient execution of public law. This definition implies that public administration is concerned by public law in public organization. Therefore, public administration is the implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for this work, with the fundamental goal to advance management and policies so that government can function well.
On the other hand, 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.
The essence of this paper is to compare and contrast public administration versus private administration, as well as their similarities and differences.
DIFFRENCES BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION
 Public administration encompasses the individuals and processes that carry out laws, rules, and regulations that are issued by legislatures or other elected officials. While 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.
 In public administration, the decision must be and should be pluralistic. That’s means all key decisions are made in a politicized environment whereby there is maximum participation. A decision making hierarchy where consensus must be achieved at each level, ideally, an informed decision. While private administration's decision-making is much simpler- it's monopolistic or close to monopolistic. Thus a goal is clearly defined since decision-making would avoid any conflicts in interest.
 Private organizations are driven by profit motive while Public organizations are defined by public interest. Private administration has an ultimate mission in pursuit of profit or stability or growth of revenues while public administration mission is to enact public policies which are ambiguous and vague, but the enactment of these policies make public administration's purpose to be more ambiguous.
 Public administration is meant to provide public services and goods if the public requires it, while private administration is established for providing consumer’s goods and services as long as consumer can afford it.
 Information in public administration is subject to full or partial disclosure, depending on the nature of information and government agency, unless if the data involves national security. While information in private administration is not accessible to the public. Government agencies may only require private administrations to report certain data, such as earnings, employee demographics, time records, among other related data required by certain government agencies.
 Public administration must operate in public eye. Public administrator’s actions are constantly subjected to public scrutiny, carrying out public policy and also responding to public demands. While an administrator in a private administration may work in relative obscurity.
 Public officials tend to have no special motivations but rather maximize work for self-interest as power, prestige and income or considerations of the public interest.
SIMILARITIES IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION
Political aspect is apparent in both public and private .Policy decisions normally affect the companies directly or indirectly, through laws and regulations and financial support.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

COMPARE AND CONTRAST PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION
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 goal...is 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]
Contents
[hide]
• 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 openforum.com.au, 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 science...is 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: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006540Accessed August 20, 2010.
12. ^ Kernaghan, Kenneth. "Public administration" in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available online at: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006540Accessed August 20, 2010.
13. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf Accessed on October 25, 2010.
14. ^ Definition Public Administration (NAICS 91). Available online at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/cis-sic/cis-sic.nsf/IDE/cis-sic91defe.html 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: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf Accessed on October 25, 2010.
28. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf Accessed on October 25, 2010.
29. ^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online at: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf 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. ^ www.powershow.com/view/.../Comparative_Public_Administratio
34. ^ www.iiasiisa.be/schools/aeacc.htm
35. ^ http://www.GlobalMPA.net
36. ^ http://www.clad.org.ve
37. ^ http://www.ebape.fgv.br/inpae
38. ^ http://www.nispa.sk/_portal/homepage.php
39. ^ http://www.apsanet.org
40. ^ http://www.aspanet.org
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.
[hide]
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


International
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
Interaction
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages
• 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
•
•
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION VS. PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION
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..
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
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: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Cherry_Lyn_Beldia



Ads by Google
School Vouchers
Enacting school vo
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


•
• 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.
References
• Freedom of Information Act
• Milakovich, Michael, E. and Gordon, George, J. (2004). Public Administration in America. Belmont, CA; Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Resources
• 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. www.LifeLock.com
• print
• email
• favorite
• share
• flag
Post a Comment
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
More
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
Answerbag
Livestrong

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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

Wilileaks

A great appreciation to Wikileaks having proved US wrong on how they "transparently" and "accountabilitly" take other nations. Kenya is a sovereign nation, and we humbly need our respect irrespective of what it takes to be.