Respond to each peer with response being 3-4 sentences long
Unfortunately, the American founders did not recognize public administration as part of the American government. There was not an agreement that protects the public organizations; instead, public managers must develop strategies and make campaigns to obtain donations. Indeed, public administration managers grow strategies to increase political support. Truly, public administrators work on building relationship with policymaking. They struggle to keep providing services to the public. In fact, public agencies should follow strict rules and requirements to comply with the government rules. Equally, public managers face challenges such as obtaining enough funding to provide services. Therefore, the government may regroup its department; thus, public administration could be included and protected by politicians. Truly, the government’s reorganization requires lot of directions and political influences. In fact, representatives debate on what department should public administration be allocated. However, they need to agree and cooperate in the reorganize of the system (Stillman, 2013).
In my opinion, American Founders did not recognize the importance of public administration by the time the created the government system and its functions. They focused on the nation’s economy. Today, public organizations make a tremendous impact on American society. For example, public services educate low income families about child development, a healthy child may be able to learn new things. Equally, the government may include public administration in its system. Politicians should work together in making changes. Certainly, politicians’ coordination and agreement are critical. Accordingly, authorities’ organization and influencing will affect public administration future. Truly, it will be time consuming.
Certainly, American founders had their own reasons why they left public administration unprotected. They considered the power of administration as a critical issue. Therefore, public administration was viewed as a subject that disturbed justice and the efficiency of the American government. Considerably, representatives observed public administration as a benefit or a privilege for certain groups (Spicer, 2017). Unconditionally, American founders considered security as vital for the nation as well as for the citizens. They believed that each person should be self-sufficiency, instead of depending on others. They though each person should pursue their own happiness and right of liberty (Spalding, 2010).
I believed, American founders had their theories to create a strong nation where everyone could be independent and grow by himself/herself. In the same way, public services were against American founders’ values and vision. The goal was to grow a strong financial nation. For example, they wanted to develop a great educational system where everyone has access to education. Representatives considered that a well-educated person may be self-sufficiency. He/she will collaborate with the society and will grow his/her own money.
Spalding, M.; (2010). America’s Founders and the Principles of Foreign Policy: Sovereign
Independence, National Interests, and the Cause of Liberty in the World. The Heritage Foundation.
Spicer, M. W.; (2017). The Founders, the Constitution, and Public Administration. A Conflict
in World Views.Georgetown University Press
Stillman, R.; (2013). Public Administration. Wadsworth 9 2010-01-01
Explain what was the profound irony embedded in the decision of the American Founders to leave questions of public administration for other generations of leaders to work out.
I read the article “The Myth of bureaucratic paradigm” and it was a very interesting journal from Larry Lynn, “The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm,” is provocative to say the least, I come to this admission not because of the overwhelming popularity of Lynn’s work or my enduring “affection for the author or … the prestige this author confers on the field” but because of the intellectual merit the essay demonstrates. I couldn’t agree more with Lynn’s overall premise and his conclusion that the traditional bureaucratic paradigm of public administration has proven to be much more responsive to democratic values than has the revisionists’ new, customer-oriented materialism and, not to be overlooked, for an “outsider,” Lynn provides a respectable and comprehensive review of the intellectual heritage of the field of public administration. That said, I fundamentally disagree with many of Lynn’s assertions. In particular, I disagree with one of his central theses: that students of public administration have failed to adequately challenge the New Public Management. I also take issue with another theme that runs, perhaps more obliquely, throughout Lynn’s piece: the methodological claims and interests of the New Public Management as compared with those of the “old” public management. Here, Lynn seems to suggest that, due to a tradition of being “unduly careless,” not only the New Public Management but the broader field of public administration itself “seems to have let lapse [its] moral and intellectual authority”. Let me begin by parting company with Lynn’s assertions that traditional public administration was unable to mount a sound, meaningful challenge to revisionist thought advanced by the New Public Management.
Lynn,Laurence E.,,Jr. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 144-160.