IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v50y1956i04p1057-1073_06.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration

Author

Listed:
  • Kaufman, Herbert

Abstract

As a self-conscious discipline among the cluster of specialties or “fields” encompassed by political science, public administration came late and grew fast. Its recent arrival and rapid growth sometimes obscure the fact that its origins are to be found in a process of experimentation with governmental structure that long preceded the appearance of public administration as a subject of systematic study and is likely to continue as long as the nation exists. This process of experimentation goes on vigorously today, and the development of new forms is generating discord more profound and far-reaching than any that has ever hitherto divided students of public administration. It is with the sources and significance of that discord that this paper is concerned. The central thesis of this paper is that an examination of the administrative institutions of this country suggests that they have been organized and operated in pursuit successively of three values, here designated representativeness, neutral competence, and executive leadership.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaufman, Herbert, 1956. "Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1057-1073, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:50:y:1956:i:04:p:1057-1073_06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400068477/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David A. Reingold, 2008. "Can government-supported evaluation and policy research be independent?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 934-941.
    2. David Marsden, 2009. "The Paradox of Performance Related Pay Systems: 'Why Do We Keep Adopting Them in the Face of Evidence that they Fail to Motivate?'," CEP Discussion Papers dp0946, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Viola Burau & Lotte Bøgh Andersen, 2014. "Professions and Professionals: Capturing the Changing Role of Expertise Through Theoretical Triangulation," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 264-293, January.
    4. Bong Hwan Kim & Sounman Hong, 2019. "Political change and turnovers: How do political principals consider organizational, individual, and performance information?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 291-308, December.
    5. Sounman Hong & Taek Kyu Kim, 2017. "Regulatory capture in agency performance evaluation: industry expertise versus revolving-door lobbying," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 167-186, April.
    6. Huijuan Zhang & William B. Eimicke, 2024. "In the Pursuit of the Balance between Efficiency and Responsiveness: A Case Study on the Innovation of the administrative Service Organization in Chinese Local Government," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 201-216, March.
    7. Ugur Omurgonulsen & M. Oktem, 2009. "Is There Any Change in the Public Service Values of Different Generations of Public Administrators? The Case of Turkish Governors and District Governors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 137-156, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:50:y:1956:i:04:p:1057-1073_06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.