Week 1 – Assignment 1: Write A Memo About Basic Concepts And Theories Related To Public Management And Week 2 – Assignment: Analyze A Case Study On Managem

Week 1 – Assignment 1: Write A Memo About Basic Concepts And Theories Related To Public Management And Week 2 – Assignment: Analyze A Case Study On Managem

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Week 1 – Assignment 1: Write A Memo About Basic Concepts And Theories Related To Public Management And Week 2 – Assignment: Analyze A Case Study On Management And Organizational Behavior Week 1 – Assignment 1: Write a Memo About Basic Concepts and Theories Related to Public Management

Instructions

Suppose you are a department head for the city government in which you live (or another city, if you wish) and you sit on a committee with other city government department heads (i.e., police chief, utilities director, etc.). The purpose of the committee is to resolve problems and discuss issues related to management and organization. One week, the committee discussed its need to know more about some of the basic concepts and theories related to public management (basically, concepts related to the readings you’ve just completed this week). When your colleagues expressed a concern about their lack of expertise in this area, you volunteered to do some analysis of scholarly material related to this topic to brief your colleagues on themes and theories relevant to this topic. The committee chair asked you to present your findings in a memo form. In order to develop an effective memo, you decide to:

discuss five key principles related to the basic concepts and theories of public management that you learned from the readings this week; and

apply them to administration in a local government context.

Write this memo in a way that presents your knowledge of this topic. Address it to the committee chair (Mr. Xing) and your other department head colleagues. Be sure to cite the resources that you used at the end of the memo.

Length: 3-4 pages

References: Include a minimum of four scholarly resources.

Cook, B. J. (2007). Democracy and administration. Woodrow Wilson’s ideas and the challenges of public management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins…

Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2016). The public administration theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rainey, H. G., & Cook, M. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Your memo should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts that are presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect graduate-level writing and APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

Week 2 – Assignment: Analyze a Case Study on Management and Organizational Behavior

Hide Folder Information

Turnitin®

Turnitin® enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.

Instructions

On the first page of the Cincinnati Enquirer on March 20, 2018 (see the Horn (2018) resource this week), was an article that explained some significant issues in the city government in Cincinnati, namely between the mayor and city manager. This article discusses this case and explains the way in which the city charter was developed. Read this article and summarize the problem(s). While every problem is complex (and cannot be clearly or completely articulated in just one article), consider the main issues involved and provide three plausible solutions. Discuss the impact of these solutions, and then recommend one solution to help Cincinnati’s political quagmire be resolved.

Follow this format:

Write an introductory paragraph.

Summarize the problem in the case study.

Provide three plausible solutions to the problem.

Analyze the impact of these three plausible solutions.

Recommend which solution you suggest should be implemented and articulate reasons for your recommendation.

Write a conclusion paragraph.

In your paper, please use clear, bolded headings to separate the paper into sections.

Length: 3-5 pages

References: Include a minimum of two scholarly resources, including the article.

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy. i n t r o d u c t i o n

Power and Public Management

Sheldon Wolin begins his rich and stimulating account of Alexis de Tocqueville’s
political thought with an assessment of the emergence of modernity and the ties
between modern political theory and modern power. The proliferation of the vol-
ume and forms of power was one distinctive milestone in the birth of modern society.
In classical and medieval worldviews, power was finite. Individuals and various social
groups contended for this scarce resource so that they could enforce their particular
conceptions of the well-ordered society (Wolin 2001, 13). The ascent of western
civilization, including advancements in science and technology, in economic orga-
nization, and in world exploration, along with the growth of populations energized
by new social, economic, and political ideas, brought a shift in perspective ‘‘from the
acquisition of power to its production.’’ Further, whereas classical political theorists
had to contend primarily with the problem of how to preserve and ration power to
stave off the chaos of an otherwise uncivilized world, modern political theorists faced
the problem of ‘‘a growing sense of helplessness amid a world bursting with new
forces’’ (15). The challenge was to bring the profusion of powers into harness. ‘‘The
modern project was not to renounce the commitment to increasing power but to
find a saving formula whereby it could be rendered ever more predictable, ever more
obedient’’ (18). That project of modern theorists involved hierarchical organization
and extensive administrative arrangements dedicated to the ‘‘pursuit of truth’’ under
centralized direction and control (26). This in turn defined the lives of individuals in
modern society around their roles ‘‘as workers, employees, administered beings, and
occasional citizens’’ (30).

In Wolin’s view, the project of modernity—of modern theorists—was to expunge

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

2 d e m o c r a c y a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

‘‘the political’’ from society. Many and diverse individuals politically engaged meant
that power would be uncontrolled and fragmented, and conflict rampant. The aim
of developing politically thoughtful, politically mature citizens could in the end only
undermine good social order. Wolin thus depicts a developmental dynamic for
human society in which individuals first lived in subjugation to the singular power
held by a family, clan, or absolute monarch. Then, in the modern age, with power
multiple and abundant, the lives of individuals became defined by the influence of
multitudinous powers consolidated in the hands of a central state and its similarly
centralized and bureaucratized appendages of economy and technology—princi-
pally the corporation and the university—which were meant to ensure the contin-
uous generation of power as nearly an end in itself. This is a tale told best by Karl
Marx. Yet even Marx ‘‘envisaged . . . a system for exploiting the power potentialities of
modern science and industry, a system that held a promise of the continuous repro-
duction of power’’ (18).

Wolin’s biography of Tocqueville is built on his well-established concern for the
waning prospects that modern society will choose an alternative path to a demonstra-
bly more democratic, more participatory, more political future. His emphasis is on
Tocqueville’s titanic and ultimately failed struggle against central elements of the
modernity project. Tocqueville sought to preserve valuable vestiges of ‘‘the classical
notion of culture as shared and publicly accessible, a preparation for participation in
the polity, and hence inseparable from civic life’’ (29) and to reconcile them with the
reality that modernity, including the rise of the idea of mass democracy, had forever
changed the world. Without such a theoretical reconciliation, however, the great
mass of the people would find no collective pathway to control of hierarchical power
but would instead remain subjugated to it in their multiple, fragmented roles requir-
ing only occasional citizenship. Through the lens of Tocqueville’s theoretical jour-
ney, Wolin thus sends us a clear warning that our identity as politically self-aware
beings, energetically engaged in self-rule and the shaping of our collective future
prospects, is rapidly vanishing from common experience.

w o o d r ow w i l s o n ’ s m o d e r n i t y p r o j e c t

In his second book, The State, based to a considerable extent on his first set of
lectures on administration, Woodrow Wilson offered his own rendition of the drama
related by Wolin. In Wilson’s version, the first act had much the same plot. Families,
clans, and tribes were part of the developmental ascent of human civilization to
nation-states, with individuals merely subjects serving the state as embodied by
absolutist monarchs. Wilson’s second act introduced a striking twist, however. He

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

p o w e r a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t 3

recounted what he called the ‘‘modern de-socialization’’ of the state (Wilson 1890,
645–46). The relationship between the state and the individual had turned upside
down, such that ‘‘ ‘The individual for the State’ had been reversed and made to read,
‘The State for the individual’ ’’ (Wilson 1890, 646; see also Link et al. 1968, 5:688).
The result was the emergence of ‘‘new ideas as to what constitutes social conve-
nience and advancement.’’ In adopting many such ideas, the modern state’s aim was
‘‘to aid the individual to the fullest and best possible realization of his individuality,
instead of merely to the full realization of his sociality. Its plan is to create the best
and fairest opportunities for the individual; and it has discovered that the way to do
this is by no means itself to undertake the administration of the individual by old-
time futile methods of guardianship’’ (Wilson 1890, 646–47, emphasis in original).

Wilson saw the modern state as marshalling power to minister to society in accord
with new ‘‘standards of convenience or expediency’’ (Link et al. 1968, 5:671, emphasis
in original; see Wilson 1890, 638). But what was the nature of this modern power?
Wilson was at best evasive on the question. Nearly two decades later, however,
writing on ‘‘Education and Democracy’’ (see Link et al. 1974, 17:131–36), Wilson
described three primary modern powers: science, or more precisely ‘‘exact science
applied’’; economic enterprise and the drive for competition and profit; and admin-
istration, the ‘‘coordination of organizations’’ in both the private and public spheres
(Thorsen 1988, 176). These modern powers were progressive in the sense that they
facilitated adjustments to changing conditions, but the social progress they moti-
vated, especially the first two powers, was generally ‘‘the expression of anarchy and
selfishness’’ (179). Administration was already bringing them under some discipline,
for administration was cooperation and coordination; Wilson contended that coop-
eration ‘‘is the law of all action in the modern world’’ (Link et al. 1974, 17:135). But to
integrate the three powers fully in order to constitute harmonious and cooperative
national, and eventually international, progress required ‘‘the growth of a fourth
power, the power of leadership’’ (Thorsen 1988, 179).

From the earliest steps in the progression of his political thought, Wilson had
accepted the reality of a modern world of new conditions and flux in the fortunes of
men, ‘‘a kinetic society, a sociogram of forces of unprecedented weight and extent,
actual and latent, thrusting ceaselessly, colliding and absorbing, but always trans-
forming and being transformed,’’ as Wolin has described it (2001, 14). In the further
development of this thinking, Wilson conceived an evolutionary ascent for demo-
cratic states characterized by the accumulation of habits and character over a long
period but also the need for adaptation and adjustment to changing conditions.
Such adjustments and adaptations brought with them the accumulation of social
and political experience that was the basis of law. Modernity brought an unprece-

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

4 d e m o c r a c y a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

dented acceleration in this dynamic, with increasing demands and pressures on
individuals from such forces as technological advancements, the development of
large and dominating economic entities, burgeoning international migration, and
rapid urbanization. Simultaneous with the very first vestiges of modernity’s arrival
came the embrace of the idea of mass democracy and the eventual expectation of
most peoples around the world that they would have some hand in determining how
society would respond to modern conditions and thus how their lives would be
shaped. In the United States, the Civil War was a clear marker for the beginning of
the effects of modernity. The war’s end and subsequent territorial development had
also brought with them the distinctive growth of an increasingly strong American
nationalism and, with the completion of the settlement of western lands, the turn
toward global engagement.

For Wilson, the integration and coordination of modern powers was an enterprise
of creation and innovation. Such ‘‘governing power’’ (Thorsen 1988, 65)—what Wil-
son thought was the proper understanding of the meaning of sovereignty—belonged
in the hands of political leaders. In his 1891 lecture on sovereignty, Wilson distin-
guished between power and control in the nature of democratic rule. Sovereignty ‘‘is
the highest political power of a State lodged in active organs of the State for purposes
of governing. Power is a positive thing; control, a negative thing. Power belongs to
government, is lodged in governing organs; control belongs to the community, is
lodged with the people’’ (Link et al. 1969, 7:339). This control concerned, of course,
the selection of political leaders and by dint of that the ability to say no, at least on
occasion, and thus the capacity to constrain the innovations of leaders.

In Wilson’s view, then, the self-government expected by peoples experiencing
modernity, especially the citizens of the United States, could not be the democracy
of the local mass meeting, could not direct decisions on policy. This would be
impossible at the national level for national purposes, for national greatness. Instead,
modern mass democracy at the level of the nation would have to be, indeed already
was, virtual. Citizens participated through thought and discussion. Political leaders
stood at the center (Thorsen 1988, 62), interpreting the thought and discussion of the
people, finding in or drawing out of the diverse and sometimes conflicting views a
common opinion and community will. On the basis of this public opinion formed,
leaders took initiative and action, to which citizens gave their active support, or at
least their assent. Sometimes they expressed their dissent in the selection of others
to lead.

Wilson’s normative understanding of the nature of modern democracy was com-
plex, with subtle shifts and modifications over time. But two dominant threads are
evident, one political, the other social. The political one was that democracy in-

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

p o w e r a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t 5

volved the choice of leaders by citizens, which implied scrutiny and discussion of the
initiatives and actions of political leaders. The social one was the absence of privilege
or division into status groupings or social classes. Echoing Tocqueville, Wilson
referred to this as ‘‘equality of conditions’’ (see Link et al. 1974, 17:81). The two
threads were intertwined, for Wilson argued that one of the most distinctive features
of democracy was that the reservoir of potential leaders was the society as a whole,
rather than limited pools based on wealth, class status, or privilege. Those with the
requisite talents and abilities would rise above their fellow citizens and be selected to
lead and exercise power. This was true even in administration, under a system of
merit selection; indeed, for Wilson it was important to argue that it was especially
true in administration, which under modern conditions would be increasingly domi-
nated by technical specialists. Merit selection thus was consistent with modern
tenets of democratic representation.

For Wilson the prospect of a democratic future of increasing organization, cen-
tralization, and limited, virtual, participatory rule was positive, not negative. It was
the only possible road to an appropriately modern form of political democracy at a
national, and eventually international, level. It was the only possible link to and
means of citizen engagement in the creation and exercise of national power and the
only recognizable form of national self-government that could be preserved in the
modern world. The exercise of power, or more precisely the creative coordination of
modern powers by government, was safely democratic because the state was oriented
toward social convenience and advancement with the individual’s development in
mind, because leaders came not from a special ruling class but from the people, and
because statesmen could not devise and undertake actions beyond what popular
thought was prepared to accept.

A particularly distinctive component of Wilson’s stance on modern democratic
rule was that most of the matters toward which citizen thought, discussion, and
scrutiny would be directed were primarily administrative. They concerned the prin-
ciples and purposes underlying national policy plans and the organization and ex-
ecution of those plans. Questions concerning how the polity would be constituted
had largely been settled, although the shift in national politics to an administrative
center was itself an important, and necessary, reconstitution of the regime. It was a
systemic reorientation that Wilson sought both to raise awareness of and to cham-
pion and guide to its proper realization.

In Wilson’s view, administrative power was the central focus of modern, integra-
tive democratic statesmanship because administration was at the center of modern
democratic politics. In the main, modern democratic politics was administration. As
a political institution, administration was intimately tied to the dynamic of demo-

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

6 d e m o c r a c y a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

cratic progress through both its foundations ‘‘laid deep in stable principle’’ (Link et
al. 1968, 5:370) as well as its accumulation of experience from the immediate and
everyday adjustment to conditions as the ‘‘daily and most constant force’’ (Link et al.
1970, 9:25) of the state. The creative exercise of sovereignty—governing power—
would draw on the adjustments and accumulated experience of administration,
transform it into changed habits, and codify it in rules, viz., statutes and, ultimately,
constitutions (Thorsen 1988, 65). The organizations of administration would carry
out the laws in their executive mode, but they would continue to make adjustments
in response to conditions—rapidly changing in the modern age—and thus admin-
istration had ‘‘a life not resident in statutes’’ and was ‘‘indirectly a constant source of
public law’’ (Link et al. 1969, 7:129, 138, emphasis deleted). As Wilson argued in both
his lectures on administration and several key speeches during the 1912 presidential
election, administration was especially actively engaged in defining and redefining
the terms of the engagement between public and private, arguably the very essence
of modern liberal democracy (Elkin 1985).

One might conclude that Wilson belongs in the pantheon of minor theorists of
the modernity project. He sought to facilitate in theory and in practice the establish-
ment of a modern administrative state within the American polity, which in many
ways was the last democratic holdout on earth against the intrusions of modern
powers and the transformation of social life into an administered existence. Yet one
might also conclude that, like Tocqueville, Wilson sought to preserve some vestiges
of the truly political in American culture and tradition (see, for example, Seidelman
1985, 40–44). His political thought, at least in its early to middle stages, was well
anchored in Tocqueville and especially Burke, who was ‘‘a historical witness to the
enduring power of traditionalism in politics’’ (Thorsen 1988, 37). Despite Wilson’s
‘‘enduring bias against localism and sectionalism in almost any conceivable form’’
(180), he worked to preserve party government and the accompanying congressional
prerogatives in a system of national leadership oriented principally toward the ex-
ercise of administrative power. Such effort much chagrined progressives who defined
national, integrative leadership as incompatible with party leadership and as the
province of the executive. It was, however, the success of democracy under modern
conditions through national integration and political synthesis that was Wilson’s
chief concern. As he argued in Constitutional Government in the United States, his
last major work of scholarship, ‘‘synthesis, not antagonism, is the whole art of govern-
ment, the whole art of power’’ (Wilson 1908, 106; see also Thorsen 1988, 16).

Power is thus an appropriate theme for assessing and interpreting Wilson’s ideas
about democracy and administration. His modernity project was centered on getting
the American polity to recognize, accept, and harness administrative power and to

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

p o w e r a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t 7

define its proper sphere in a democratic regime facing the pressures, fluxes, and
transformations of the new age. This was, at least from Wilson’s perspective, a project
of progress and transformation of the political, not its exorcism. The centering of
political thought and political action on administration and the positioning of the
people outside the sphere of immediate and day-to-day initiative and action in
governing was in Wilson’s analysis the inexorable outcome of the evolution of the
modern democratic state. Although there might be many practices of businesslike
efficiency universally applicable across regimes, matters of social convenience and
advancement—even the associated organizational arrangements and administrative
practices—were fundamentally of a political nature and regime-specific. The enter-
prise was not just a matter of insuring the ‘‘democratic accountability’’ of govern-
ment bureaucracy in the rather reductionist sense that seems to dominate current
political thinking and practice. Political leadership would link administrative exper-
tise, political habits and traditions, public thought, and political experience in a
grand, creative synthesis that would fortify and enrich democracy—make it more
democratic—in the only way possible under the conditions of modernity.

In all this one may find a very compelling way of understanding Wilson’s forty-
year project of scholarship, public rhetoric, and national and international states-
manship. But what of its relevance to modern public management?

p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t a n d m o d e r n p ow e r

Public management as currently conceived by many scholars and practitioners is
the heir to Norton Long’s effort to focus administrative theory and practice on
matters of power (see Kettl 2002, 79). Long argued that ‘‘power is only one of the
considerations that must be weighed in administration, but of all it is the most
overlooked in theory and the most dangerous to overlook in practice’’ (1949, 257).
Long principally focused on the deployment of power in practice, and his was a
modern power orientation in Wolin’s sense of the term. Long wanted theorists and
practitioners to attend to the power production problem—how administrators could
generate an adequate amount of power that would allow them to put public policies
into effect. Administrators could not rely for their power solely on the authority
granted by Congress and the president in statutes and executive orders or on the
power inherent in the bureaucratic structure of hierarchy and command. In order to
advance the missions of their agencies, administrators had to produce power by
devising strategies, creating alliances, and neutralizing opposition.

This way of thinking about, and acting toward, public administration and manage-
ment has become the principal focus of the executive management orientation in the

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

8 d e m o c r a c y a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

study and practice of public management (see, for example, Heymann 1987). Its
special focus is high-level political appointees. But Long made no distinction be-
tween high-level, politically appointed executives and career middle managers in his
advocacy of a power orientation toward practice. Career executives and managers
also had to be concerned with the matter of producing enough power to effect policy
change and realize public outcomes. In an important sense, Long’s orientation
bridged what subsequently became something of a bifurcation in the field of public
management. The currently dominant conceptualization of the field of public man-
agement in both study and practice thus can be said to combine the executive
management focus on strategies and tactics aimed at advancing agency missions with
the mantra of performance that places the onus for the measurement and demonstra-
tion of results on middle managers (see Rainey 1990; Brudney, O’Toole, and Rainey
2000, 4–6; Behn 2001, 23–27; but also see Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003).

Public management thus consists of public executives and managers employing
‘‘judgment or discretion’’ (Lynn 2000, 15) in the design and deployment of organiza-
tional, fiscal, financial, budgetary, analytical, and human capital resources and tech-
niques. Together the actions of executives and managers constitute the harnessing of
what Wilson called the power of organization and coordinated effort—the power of
administration. Indeed, in modern public management, especially under the aus-
pices of the ‘‘New Public Management,’’ public executives and managers attempt to
harness Wilson’s other modern powers—exact science applied, economic enterprise
—in their efforts. But to what end is all this directed?

Presumably the ‘‘public’’ in public management refers to public purposes or the
public good. On this basis, even individuals running purely private entities are
public managers if they are engaged in pursuing a public purpose (see, for example,
Behn 1997, 3–8). One might regard executives and managers of even the most
private of entities—profit-making enterprises—as public managers because they pro-
duce goods or services people enjoy and value, and the wealth they generate directly
improves the lives of those associated with their enterprises and thus indirectly
improves the lives of their communities and even society at large. Many of the largest
and most influential for-profit enterprises fall into a public classification—joint-stock
companies are public corporations, chartered by state governments, and their direc-
tors have obligations to both the company owners and the relevant public authori-
ties. More important, it was almost standard doctrine of both the populist and
progressive eras that publicly chartered corporations had to operate, and have their
behavior evaluated, with an eye toward the public interest. Wilson pressed this view
quite strenuously, as when he envisioned in his 1910 American Political Science
Association presidential address an era combining the statesmanship of thought and

Cook, Brian J.. Democracy and Administration : Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318366.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2021-09-20 19:50:58.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
7
.
Jo

h
n
s

H
o
p
ki

n
s

U
n
iv

e
rs

ity
P

re
ss

.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e

se
rv

e
d
.

p o w e r a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t 9

of action, in which ‘‘even corporations may seem instrumentalities, not objects in
themselves, and the means may presently appear whereby they may be made the
servants, not the masters, of the people’’ (Link et al. 1976, 22:271–72).

The academic literature on public management includes an extensive debate
over what the differences between public and private management are, and whether
they are really meaningful (see, for example, the brief treatment in Rainey 1990, 160,
161–62).

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order