Public Administration and Public Interest: Roles and Strategies

Introduction to Public Administration

The ultimate aim of a public administrator is the provision of the best facilities to the public and to make decisions that positively influence the public interest. It is important for a public administrator to identify the problems faced by the local community and then to devise strategies that help solve those problems.

Public administration can be defined as the implementation of policies made by the government, in accordance with the academic discipline concerned with the implementation of government policies by civil servants (Random House Unabridged Dictionary).

The main goal of public administration is to enhance the management of government and supervise the implementation of policies so that government can function properly (Bartley, Hildreth & Miller, 1989). Many scholars have offered additional definitions, including "public program management," "the implementation and practicality of politics for the daily lives of citizens," and "the study of government and civil servant decision-making processes" (Kernaghan, 2010). Furthermore, a sound public administrator must analyze existing policies, the inputs that resulted in their implementation, and the inputs required for the formation and implementation of alternative policies.

The main concern of public administration is the management of government-made policies, programs, and the conduct of officials who, though unelected, are responsible for executing those policies (UN Economic and Social Council, 2006). These unelected public servants — commonly known as public administrators — include city managers and heads of federal, state, regional, county, and city departments such as municipal budget offices, human resource management, census management, city management, state directorates, and cabinet secretariats. All individuals working at every level of government in public agencies and departments are considered public administrators.

American civil service reform was championed by civil servants and academics — most notably Woodrow Wilson — in the 1880s, which helped transform public administration into an academic discipline. However, it was not until the first half of the twentieth century had passed, and German sociologist Max Weber had presented his theory of bureaucracy, that significant scholarly interest in public administration took hold (Public administration, 2010).

The field of public administration cannot be confined to a single discipline. Its sub-fields rest on six pillars: organizational theory, ethics, statistics, policy analysis, budgeting, and human resources (Shafritz & Hyde, 2007).

Public Interest: Definitions and Debates

Debates about public interest are closely tied to discussions about policy, democracy, and the nature of government. Although there is broad agreement that the well-being and welfare of the general public is a positive goal, there has been far less agreement on what factors actually constitute the public interest. One critical factor is the identification of problems faced by the general public and the making of decisions that help address those problems.

According to the Random House Dictionary, public interest can be defined as the well-being or welfare of the general public (Ho, 2011).

Models of Decision-Making

Public administrators are expected to perform a wide range of duties, which is why theoretical frameworks for decision-making are so valuable. Scholars and practitioners alike have developed and refined numerous decision-making models over time. Two of the most widely used are discussed below.

The budget-maximizing model was proposed by Professor William Niskanen in 1971. He put forward a rational-choice variation that argued a bureaucrat acting rationally will always seek to maximize the budget of the departments under his control, on the premise that a larger budget allows the state to grow economically and deliver more to the public, thereby serving the public interest. Niskanen himself served as one of the economic advisors on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. The decision-making model he proposed has since been reinforced by observations of reduced public spending and increased privatization.

Nevertheless, his theory did not align well with reality, as ballooning expenditures and increasing debt were both observed during the Reagan administration. Several authors have criticized Niskanen's framework as overly universal, arguing instead that officials can and must adapt to the changing demands of the public in order to truly serve the public interest.

This decision-making model is effectively a revision of Niskanen's, arguing that rational bureaucrats will increase only that portion of the budget directed toward their own agency's operations, or toward interest groups and contractors. According to this theory, the groups that receive the most budgetary attention are those that organize and deliver a cascade of benefits to the officials above them.

For example, when a rational official directs a large payment to members of the public who do not earn well, he receives no personal benefit from that payment, and his bureaucratic goals go unserved. By the same logic, one would expect budget allocations for security and defense to increase within a given jurisdiction.

Returning to Reagan's administration, the bureau-shaping model helps explain the apparent reduction in the size of government without a corresponding decrease in overall spending: budgetary resources that had previously supported programming and public services were redirected toward military personnel and research.

Conclusion

The department of public administration — whether at the local or federal level — exists for the general public and the public interest. The first and foremost aim of public administrators must therefore be to help citizens overcome their problems and to provide them with the best available services. All public needs, including education, health, and economic concerns, should be addressed thoroughly.

There should also be a regulatory authority to oversee the actions of public administrators. This is particularly important in democratic systems, where opportunistic interest groups may work to advance their own agendas and attempt to corrupt or unduly influence administrators.

It should also be recognized that the theories and frameworks devised by past scholars and scientists should not be followed blindly. Administrative decision-making must not be mechanically derived from theoretical models, but should be adapted and motivated by the actual demands and needs of the people.

Public interest is — and in ideal circumstances should be — the central concept in public administration. It is one of the most meaningful standards by which the effectiveness of governments can be evaluated, particularly in relation to the positive or negative effects of their policies on the welfare of the public (Morrell & Harrington-Buhay, 2011).