Public Administrative Discretion: Federalism and Reform
This paper examines four interconnected dimensions of public administration. It begins by comparing public and private administration across accountability, decision-making, transparency, and funding structures. It then analyzes administrative federalism from federal, state, and local perspectives, illustrating how each level of government exercises distinct authority. The paper next explores organizational reengineering as a tool for improving efficiency in public agencies, drawing on examples from U.S. states and developing nations. Finally, it addresses administrative discretion — the authority public officials hold to make decisions in areas not fully governed by law — and how that discretion can be exercised responsibly and collaboratively across levels of government.
- Public vs. Private Administration: Comparing accountability, transparency, and decision-making structures
- Administrative Federalism Across Government Levels: How federal, state, and local authority interact
- Organizational Reengineering in the Public Sector: Applying business reengineering to improve public agencies
- Administrative Discretion in Public Governance: How officials exercise authority beyond explicit law
- Conclusion: Collaborative discretion across all government levels
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each section uses concrete, real-world examples — such as marijuana legalization disputes, HUD funding conditions, and the EPA's role in environmental policy — to ground abstract administrative concepts in observable practice.
- The paper maintains a consistent comparative structure, repeatedly contrasting public and private, or federal and state/local, which makes the argument easy to follow and the distinctions memorable.
- The use of multiple scholarly sources across all four sections signals intellectual breadth and reinforces each claim with academic authority rather than relying on assertion alone.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of multi-level analysis — examining how a single concept (administrative discretion or federalism) functions differently depending on the tier of government. This technique allows the writer to show nuance without contradicting the central thesis, and is well suited to public administration topics where context-dependence is fundamental.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four numbered sections, each addressing a discrete topic: (1) comparing public and private administration, (2) administrative federalism at federal, state, and local levels, (3) organizational reengineering theory and practice, and (4) administrative discretion across government levels. Each section follows an expository pattern: introduce the concept, explain its significance, and provide illustrative examples before moving to the next topic.
Public vs. Private Administration
The main difference between public and private administration is that in the former the administration both serves the public and is accountable to the public, while in the latter the administration is accountable only to stakeholders, who may or may not include members of the community. Other differences stem from the fact that private administration oversees a business organization focused on goals related to its mission and business model. Public administration, by contrast, refers to a political process wherein official administrators are elected or appointed to work for the good of the public. They typically control or use public funds, must give a public accounting of how those funds are used, and must fulfill a mandate given to them by the public — though it is ultimately up to the public to hold them accountable. If the public does not do so, the administration may act as it pleases without suffering political repercussions (Savoie, 2006). Private administration is a non-governmental operation; public administration is a government operation. Public administration is typically organized bureaucratically, while private administration tends to be organized hierarchically or along egalitarian principles.
The advantages of public administration lie in its orientation toward the welfare of the public, whereas private administration is oriented toward the welfare of the corporation (Reyes & Pounder, 1993). Public administration seeks to benefit the community through its initiatives. Private administration seeks to serve the community through a product or service from which the company can profit.
The advantage of private administration is that decision-making is more streamlined and typically more effective, provided the decision-maker is skilled in leadership. In public administration, decision-making is often conducted by committee and is pluralistic in nature, which can make it difficult for action to be taken when members disagree. Debates can be contentious, and there can be considerable stalling and apparent inaction.
The disadvantages of public administration include its dependence on taxation for revenue to fund its projects. This means citizens must pay for its existence and for the salaries of those who serve within it, whether they wish to or not. This can generate frustration and anger, particularly when the public is forced to fund something it opposes. That sentiment can in turn lead to reduced tax compliance as people find ways to avoid paying, which can dry up revenue streams and make the public administration even less effective.
The disadvantage of private administration is that it typically lacks transparency and discloses only what the law requires — which can be very little in many cases. Unless a private company goes public, for example, it is not obligated to release quarterly statements or hold investor conference calls. An early investor in a company like WeWork might have expected a strong return only to discover, when the company attempted to go public, that its internal finances were in serious disarray. The lack of transparency is therefore a significant concern in private administration.
References
Cann, S. (2007). The administrative state, the exercise of discretion, and the constitution. Public Administration Review, 67(4), 780–782.
EPA. (2015). Administrative discretion. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/administrative_discretion_nonotesclean.pdf
Reyes, P., & Pounder, D. G. (1993). Organizational orientation in public and private elementary schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 86–93.
Reyes, D. R. (1998). Public sector reengineering: Practice, problems and prospects.
Rinaldi, M., Montanari, R., & Bottani, E. (2015). Improving the efficiency of public administrations through business process reengineering and simulation: A case study. Business Process Management Journal, 21(2), 419–462.
Rubenstein, D. S. (2015). Administrative federalism as separation of powers. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 72, 171.
Savoie, D. J. (2006). What is wrong with the new public management? In Comparative Public Administration (pp. 593–602). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Saxena, K. B. C. (1996). Re-engineering public administration in developing countries. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 703–711.
Schwager, R. (1999). Administrative federalism and a central government with regionally based preferences. International Tax and Public Finance, 6(2), 165–189.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.