World comes from one of the most hostile places on earth - the Sonora desert in Northern Mexico. Hot, waterless and full of rattlesnakes, it's crossed every day by thousands of migrants desperate to reach the USA - many of whom die a lonely death trying to fulfill their dream of a better life.
Reporter Aidan Hartley and producer Julie Noon begin their journey at the San Miguel Gate crossing. There, they meet Marta, a young woman who will pay people smugglers known as coyotes $3000 to get her across the border. She tells Hartley that she owes the coyotes the money which she will pay off once she gets a job, putting her into a form of bonded labour.
Travelling deeper into the desert, the team comes across a monument to the more than 2950 people, including children, who have died in this part of the desert. They are just some of the estimated million people who try to cross the border every year.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Global Sector: The World & Foreign Affairs
Bringing students and professors the best in global politics, economics and ideas for less.
Foreign Policy is the award-winning, bimonthly magazine that explains how globalization is changing the way the world works—how it’s changing traditional institutions, political and cultural structures, and, simply, our everyday lives. FP is the one magazine that draws on the world’s leading journalists, thinkers, and practitioners to analyze and debate the most significant international trends and events of our times. And does so across a wide spectrum of academic disciplines, without political bias.
All subscriptions include:
* 6 Bi-monthly issues of FP
* Weekly web exclusives at ForeignPolicy.com
* Passport — a blog by the editors
* Unlimited access to FP’s 37-year article archive
* And much, much more
Rigorous and accessible, indomitable and irreverent, FP is an unparalleled educational tool in the classroom.
What Dana Carey Learned @ the Law School Admissions Workshop
Things to do, know, and visit: Before you apply:-Practice with real questions from the LSAT from the past 5 years, timed-Visit LSAT.org and view the test questions from the past 10 years-TAKE AN LSAT PREP COURSE-Only take the LSAT once, if you can, meaning only take it when you are completely prepared While you apply:-Apply as early as possible (they’ll have more time to read and more slots open then on the last day)-Apply for fee waivers-Apply to at least 15 law schools in and out of state in all 3 tiers-Your Index # (measures your competiveness) is calculated by multiplying your LSAT score by your GPA-While other factors are important, law schools primarily focus on LSAT scores and GPA -In your personal statement (PS), answer these three questions: Who are you? What are your goals? How will law school help you to achieve them?-Don’t bother writing addendums unless 100% necessary and don’t repeat anything from the PS in them-In your PS, try to discuss a challenge you had, what you did to overcome it, and the bigger picture of what you want to do and why…make an argument for yourself-Prove you are set on going to and staying in law school-If you discuss a challenge you overcame, be sure to focus on your accomplishments, not your struggles; what you did in spite of your challenges-HAVE STRONG STRUCTURE in your PS. For example: Failure, Changes of Perception, Changes of Action, Success, Discussion. Discussion should be the majority; limit everything else.-Have at least 3 people edit your PS-Eliminate ALL spelling, grammar, and structure errors. -Read Strunk and White’s Elements of Styles for writing tips-Send you PS to the person writing your letter of recommendation (LOR)-Only have LORs from academic sources. Law schools prefer professors over anyone else (no coaches, bosses, etc…) When you hear back from schools:-If you are waitlisted, send a letter, email message, or call the school and say, “Thanks so much, I would just like to express my continued interest in your school, here’s my updated GPA, job, internship, etc…Have a wonderful day.”-Ask for money from your top choice you were accepted to. Tell them if another school gave you money and that you will have to go there if you can’t get any from your number one…Competition may end in financial
Leia Mais…Sunday, October 25, 2009
Public administration
Public administration can be broadly described as the development, implementation and study of branches of government policy. The pursuit of the public good by enhancing civil society, ensuring a well-run, fair, and effective public service are some of the goals of the field.
Public administration is carried out by public servants who work in public departments and agencies, at all levels of government, and perform a wide range of tasks. Public administrators collect and analyze data (statistics), monitor budgets, draft legislation, develop policy, and execute legally mandated government activities. Public administrators serve in many roles: ranging from "front-line" positions serving the public (e.g., peace officers, parole officers, border guards); administrators (e.g., auditors); analysts (e.g., policy analysts); and managers and executives of government branches and agencies.
Public administration is also an academic field. In comparison with related fields such as political science, public administration is relatively new, having emerged in the 19th century. Multidisciplinary in character, it draws on theories and concepts from political science, economics, sociology, administrative law,behavioural science,management, and a range of related fields. The goals of the field of public administration are related to the democratic values of improving equality, justice, security, efficiency, effectiveness of public services usually in a non-profit, non-taxable venue; business administration, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with taxable profit. For a field built on concepts (accountability, governance, decentralization, clientele), these concepts are often ill-defined and typologies often ignore certain aspects of these concepts (Dubois & Fattore 2009).[1]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 In academia
* 2 History
o 2.1 Antiquity to the early 19th century
o 2.2 Mid-1800s - 1930s
o 2.3 1940s
+ 2.3.1 Post-World War II - 1970s
o 2.4 1980s
o 2.5 1990s
+ 2.5.1 New public management (NPM)
* 3 Public Budgeting
o 3.1 Leading Definitions
o 3.2 Leading Theorists and Contributions
o 3.3 Approaches to Budgeting
o 3.4 Functions of a Budget Document
+ 3.4.1 Traditional Model
+ 3.4.2 Modern Model
o 3.5 Six Steps Steps of the Budgetary Process; simplified
o 3.6 Capital Financial Management: Accumulating Public Wealth
* 4 Organizational theory
o 4.1 Management and government academic work
o 4.2 Early management theory
o 4.3 Early political administration theory
o 4.4 Emergence as a distinct field
o 4.5 A consolidated discipline
o 4.6 Public management
o 4.7 Humanist era
o 4.8 Rethinking power and management
o 4.9 Organizational power
o 4.10 New public management
o 4.11 Feminist interpretations
o 4.12 New public service
* 5 Decision-making models and public administration
o 5.1 William Niskanen's budget-maximizing
o 5.2 Patrick Dunleavy's bureau shaping
* 6 Ethics: (Denhardt 127-128)
o 6.1 Notable scholars
* 7 References
* 8 See also
o 8.1 Societies for public administration
o 8.2 International public administration
* 9 External links
* 10 Suggested reading
[edit] In academia
See also: Master of Public Administration and Doctor of Public Administration
A public administrator can expect to serve in a variety of capacities. In the United States, the academic field draws heavily on political science and law. In Europe (notably in Britain and Germany), the divergence of the field from other disciplines can be traced to the 1720s continental university curriculum. Formally, official academic distinctions were made in the 1910s and 1890s, respectively. Returning again to the United States, the Federalist Papers referred to the importance of good administration at various times. Further, scholars such as John A. Rohr writes of a long history behind the constitutional legitimacy of government bureaucracy.
One minor tradition that the more specific term "public management" refers to ordinary, routine or typical management concerns, in the context of achieving public good. Others argue that public management as a new, economically driven perspective on the operation of government. We will see that this latter view is often called "new public management" by its advocates. New Public Management represents a reform attempt, aimed at reemphasizing the professional nature of the field. This will replace the academic, moral or disciplinary emphasis. Some theorists advocate a bright line differentiation of the professional field from related academic disciplines like political science and sociology; it remains interdisciplinary in nature.
As a field, public administration can be compared to business administration, and the master of public administration (MPA) viewed as similar to a master of business administration (MBA) for those wishing to pursue governmental or non-profit careers. An MPA often emphasizes substantially different ethical and sociological criteria that are traditionally secondary to that of profit for business administrators. The MPA is related to similar government studies including public affairs, public policy, and political science. Differences often include program emphases on policy analysis techniques or other topical focuses such as the study of international affairs as opposed to focuses on constitutional issues such as separation of powers, administrative law, problems of governance and power, and participatory democracy.
The Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) is a terminal applied-research doctoral degree in the field of public administration, focusing on practice. The DPA requires a dissertation and significant coursework beyond the masters level. Upon successful completion of the doctoral requirements, the title of "Doctor" is awarded and the post-nominals of D.P.A. are often added.
Public administration theory is the domain in which discussions of the meaning and purpose of government, bureaucracy, budgets, governance, and public affairs takes place. In recent years, public administration theory has periodically connoted a heavy orientation toward critical theory and postmodern philosophical notions of government, governance, and power. However, many public administration scholars support a classic definition of the term emphasizing constitutionality, service, bureaucratic forms of organization, and hierarchical government.
[edit] History
[edit] Antiquity to the early 19th century
Classic scholars including Plato, Aristotle, Vishnu Gupta(Kautilya) and Machiavelli are the basis of subsequent generations of public administration. Until the birth of a national state, the governors principally emphasized moral and political human nature, as well as the on the organization of the governing bodies. Operations were perceived to be secondary to establishing and clarifying the overall guiding theory of government. In Machiavelli's The Prince, European princes or governors were offered advice for properly administering their governments. This work represents one of the first Western expressions of the methodology of government. As the centuries moved past, scholars and governors persisted in their various endeavors explaining how one governs.
Though progress varied across the globe, 16th century Western Europe primarily ascribed to the "national-state" model of government and its corresponding administrative structures. Predominantly imperial Asia, tribal Africa, and the tribal/colonial Americas were each feeling the extent of Europe's diplomatic strategies whose emphasis was war, profit, and proselytizing. In any event, nation-states required a professional force and structure for carrying out the primary purposes of government: ensuring stability with through law, security with a military, and some measure of equity through taxation.
Consequently, the need for expert civil servants whose ability to read and write formed the basis for developing expertise in such necessary activities as legal records, military prowess, and tax administration, and record keeping. As the European imperialist age progressed and the militarily dominant region extended its hold over other continents and people, the need for increasingly conventional administrative expertise grew.
Eighteenth century noble, King Frederick William I of Prussia, created professorates in Cameralism in an effort to service this need. The universities of Frankfurt an der Oder and University of Hallewere Prussian institutions emphasizing economic and social disciplines, with the goal of societal reform. Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi was the most well-known professor of Cameralism. Thus, from a Western European perspective, classic, medieval, and enlightened scholars formed the foundation of the discipline that has come to be called public administration.
[edit] Mid-1800s - 1930s
Lorenz von Stein, an 1855 German professor from Vienna, is considered the founder of the science of public administration in many parts of the world. In the time of Von Stein, public administration was considered a form of administrative law, but Von Stein believed this concept too restrictive.
Von Stein taught:
* Public administration relies on many prestablished disciplines such as sociology, political science, administrative law and public finance. Further, public administration is an integrating science.
* Public administrators need be concerned with both theory and practice. Practical considerations are at the forefront of the field, but theory is the basis of best practices.
* Public administration is a science because knowledge is generated and evaluated according to the scientific method.
In the United States, Woodrow Wilson is considered the father of public administration. He first formally recognized public administration in an 1887 article entitled "The Study of Administration." The future president wrote that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy."[2] Wilson was more influential to the science of public administration than Von Stein, primarily due to an article Wilson wrote in 1887 in which he advocated four concepts:
* Separation of politics and administration
* Comparative analysis of political and private organizations
* Improving efficiency with business-like practices and attitudes toward daily operations
* Improving the effectiveness of public service through management and by training civil servants, merit-based assessment
The separation of politics and administration has been the subject of lasting debate. The different perspectives regarding this dichotomy contribute to differentiating characteristics of the suggested generations of public administration.
[edit] 1940s
The separation of politics and administration advocated by Wilson continues to play a significant role in public administration today. However, the dominance of this dichotomy was challenged by second generation scholars, beginning in the 1940s. Luther Gulick's fact-value dichotomy was a key contender for Wilson's allegedly impractical politics-administration dichotomy. In place of Wilson's first generation split, Gulick advocated a "seamless web of discretion and interaction" (Fry 1989, 80).[3]
Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick are two such second generation scholars. Gulick, Urwick, and the new generation of administrators stood on the shoulders of contemporary behavioral, administrative, and organizational "giants" including Henri Fayol, Fredrick W. Taylor, Paul Appleby, Frank Goodnow, and Willam Willoughby. With the help of these specialists and their empirical work on human nature, group behavior, and business organizations, second generation public administration scholars had a necessary advantage over the pre-generation and first generation scholars. That is, the new generation of organizational theories no longer relied upon logical assumptions and generalizations about human nature like classical and enlightened theorists.
Gulick is considered a watershed theorist, a truly unique administrative scholar credited with generating a comprehensive, generic theory of organization. During his seven decade career Gulick differentiated his theories from those of his predecessors by emphasizing the scientific method, efficiency, professionalism, structural reform, and executive control. Gulick summarized the duties of administrators with an acronym; POSDCORB, which stands for planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Finally, Fayol offered a systematic, 14-point, treatment of private management. Second generation theorists drew upon private management practices for administrative sciences. A single, generic management theory bleeding the borders between the private and the public sector, was thought to be possible. With the general theory, the administrative theory could be focused on governmental organizations.
[edit] Post-World War II - 1970s
The mid-1940s theorists challenged Wilson and Gulick. The politics-administration dichotomy remained the center of criticism in the third generation. In addition to this area of criticism, government itself came under fire as ineffective, inefficient, and largely a wasted effort. The sometimes deceptive, and expensive American intervention in Vietnam along with domestic scandals including Watergate are two examples of self-destructive government behavior during the third generation. There was a call by citizens for efficient administration to replace ineffective, wasteful bureaucracy. Public administration would have to distance itself from politics to answer this call and remain effective.
Elected officials supported such reform. The Hoover Commission, chaired by University of Chicago professor Louis Brownlow, to examine reorganization of government. Dr. Brownlow subsequently he founded the public administration service on the university, 1313 E. 60th Street. The organization PAS provided consulting services to governments at all levels of government until the 1970s.
[edit] 1980s
In the late 1980s, yet another generation of public administration theorists began to displace the last. What was called New Public Management was proposed by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler [4] . The new model advocated the use of private sector innovation, resources, and organizational ideas to improve the public sector. During the Clinton Administration (1992-2000), Vice President Al Gore adopted and reformed federal agencies accordingly. New public management there by became prevalent throughout the US bureaucracy.
Some critics argue that the New Public Management concept of Americans as "customers" rather than "citizens" is an unacceptable abuse. That is, customers are a means to an end, profit, rather than part of the policy making process. Citizens are in fact the proprietors of government (the owners), opposed to merely the customers of a business (the patrons). In New Public Management, people are viewed as economic units not democratic participants. Nevertheless, the model is still widely accepted at all levels of government.
[edit] 1990s
In the late 1990s, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed a new public service model [5]. This model's chief contribution is a focus on Americans as "citizens" rather than "customers". Accordingly, the citizen is expected to participate in government and take an active role throughout the policy process. No longer are the proprietors considered an end to a mean. Whilse this remains feasible at the federal, state & local levels, where the concept of citizenship is commonly wedded, the emergence of 'transnational administration' with the growing number of international organizations and 'transnational executive networks' complicates the prospects for citizen engagement.[6]
One example of this is openforum.com.au, an Australian non-for-profit eDemocracy project which invites politicians, senior public servants, academics, business people and other key stakeholders to engage in high-level policy debate.
[edit] New public management (NPM)
The critics of NPM claim that a successor to NPM is digital era governance, focusing on themes of reintegrating government responsibilities, needs-based holism (executing duties in cursive ways), and digitalization (exploiting the transformational capabilities of modern IT and digital storage).
[edit] Public Budgeting
[edit] Leading Definitions
Practical: "A plan for financing an enterprise or government during a definite period, which is prepared and submitted by a responsible executive to a representative body (or other duly constituted agent) whose approval and authorization are necessary before the plan may be executed." ~Frederick A. Cleveland [7]
Theoretical: The leading question: "On what basis shall it be decided to allocate x dollars to activity A instead of activity B?" ~V. O. Key Jr. [8]
[edit] Leading Theorists and Contributions
Frederick Cleveland: constructed a practical definition of budgeting.[9]
William F. Willoughby: describes the purpose of a budget document. [10]
V. O. Key, Jr.: sparked the normative question regarding how scarce resources ought to be distributed to unlimited demands. [11]
Verne B. Lewis: argued for a budgeting theory based on economic values; strongly contributing to the study of public finance. [12]
Richard A. Musgrave: the Father of Public Finance; identified the three roles of government in the economy: allocation of resources, distribution of goods and services, and economy stabilization.[13]
Aaron Wildavsky:suggested that budgetary decision making is largely political, rather than based on economic conditions. [14]
Allen Schick: outlined the three functions of budgeting:
1) Strategic Planning; deciding on the goals and objectives of an organization.
2) Management Control; management's process of assuring effective and efficient accomplishment of goals and objectives laid out via strategic planning.
3) Operational Control; focused on proper execution of specific tasks that provide the most efficient and effective means of meeting the goals and objectives ordered by management control.[15]
Irene S. Rubin: facilitated the discussion of the dichotomy between theory and practice of public budgeting.[16] See also: Rubin, Irene S. (1997) The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing. Third Edition, Chatham House Publishers: Chatham, New Jersey.
[edit] Approaches to Budgeting
A brief note on Systems Theory applied to Political Science: Inputs enter the governmental system that produces outputs which--in turn--are related to outcomes.[17] The conversion of inputs to outputs is a measure of efficiency as the measurement of contributing inputs to impacting outcomes is a measure of efficacy.
Line Item Budgeting is arguably the simplest form of budgeting, this approach links the inputs of the system to the system. These budgets typically appear in the form of accounting documents that express minimal information regarding purpose or an explicit object within the system.
Program Budgeting takes a normative approach to budgeting in that decision making--allocating resources--is determined by the funding of one program instead of another based on what that program offers. This approach quickly lends itself to the PPBS budgeting approach.
PPBS Budgeting or--Program Planning Budgeting System--is the link between the line-item and program budgets and the more complex performance budget. As opposed to the more simple program budget, this decision making tool links the program under consideration to the ways and means of facilitating the program. This is meant to serve as a long-term planning tool so that decision makers are made aware of the future implications of their actions. These are typically most useful in capital projects. The planning portion of the approach seeks to link goals to objects or expected outcomes from specific outputs, which are then sorted into programs that convert inputs to outputs; finally, the budgeting of PPBS helps determine how to fund the program. A leader in the promotion of PPBS was Robert McNamara's use in the United States Government's Department of Defense in the 1960s.
Performance Based Budgeting attempts to solve decision making problems based on a programs ability to convert inputs to outputs and/or use inputs to affect certain outcomes. Performance may be judged by a certain program's ability to meet certain objectives that contribute to a more abstract goal as calculated by that program's ability to use resources (or inputs) efficiently--by linking inputs to outputs--and/or effectively--by linking inputs to outcomes. A decision making--or allocation of scarce resources--problem is solved by determining which project maximizes efficiency and efficacy.
Zero-based budgeting is a response to an incremental decision making process whereby the budget of a given fiscal year (FY) is largely decided upon by the existing budget of FY-1. In contrast to incrementalism, the allocation of scarce resources--funding--is determined from a zero-sum accounting method. In government, each function of a department's section proposes certain objectives that relate to some goal the section could achieve if allocated x dollars.
[edit] Functions of a Budget Document
[edit] Traditional Model
Control: using the budget document to control expenditures to maximize accountability. This function is most commonly associated with line-item budgets.
Management:using the budget document to manage organizations and personnel. This function is focused on performance and efficiency. This function is most commonly associated with performance budgets.
Planning: using the budget document as a plan to achieve some goal. The focus of this function is on the outcome and effectiveness of a program. This function is most commonly associated with program and PPBS budgets.
[edit] Modern Model
Monitoring: as a response to the traditional control function, the monitoring function focuses on the consequences of expenditures.
Steering: as a response to the traditional management function, the steering function serves as a guide for managing.
Strategic Brokering uses the budget document as a means of constantly looking for possible directions and reacting to the environment.
[edit] Six Steps Steps of the Budgetary Process; simplified
Revenue Estimation performed in the executive branch by the finance director, clerk's office, budget director, manager, or a team.
Budget Call issued to outline the presentation form, recommend certain goals.
Budget Formulation reflecting on the past, set goals for the future and reconcile the difference.
Budget Hearings can include departments, sections, the executive, and the public to discuss changes in the budget.
Budget Adoption final approval by the legislative body.
Budget Execution amending the budget as the fiscal year progresses.
[edit] Capital Financial Management: Accumulating Public Wealth
[edit] Organizational theory
The thematic evolution of organizational theory is yet another way one might capture the development of the field. Modern public sector organizational theory can be thought of as the product of two fields of study: management and government. Each of these disciplines stand upon a foundation built by the theories of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, Abraham Maslow, and Robert Golembiewski.
Foundational scholars do not precede the entire discipline and have emerged by contributing to transformations of the field. The discipline has undergone at least two major transformations: from classic, rational managers and political scientists to a humanistic model of management and increasingly distinct public administration scholars. Indeed, some argue that the third and possibly fourth thematic developments are currently under way. That is, new public management that was popular with the Clinton Administration (1992-2000) may soon yield to new public service.
[edit] Management and government academic work
In much the same way “pre-generation” scholars provide a foundation for future governors and administrators, many seemingly unrelated scholars are important to the developing organizational theory. Though their respective connections with and relevance to organizational theory vary, Marx, Weber, Freud, Maslow, and Golembiewski (Denhardt 104-108)[18] form the foundation for much of what has become public sector organizational theory.
* Karl Marx-”The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” (The Communist Manifesto 1848, 10)
* Max Weber-Government merely monopolizes the legitimate use of force in a given area. Weber’s most famous work was The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930).
* Sigmund Freud-Subconscious needs and desires are manifest in everyday human activities; The Interpretation of Dreams (1900).
* Abraham Maslow theorized that there is a hierarchy of human needs, each level of which must be fulfilled before one can effectively ascend to the next level. Toward a Psychology of Being (1968).
*
o The five categories of needs are, in hierarchical order: physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, self esteem, and self actualization needs.
* Robert Golembiewski- Golembiewski wrote two books of particular relevance to public administration: Men Management and Morality (1967 in Denhardt 2001, 104) and Renewing Organizations (1972 in Denhardt 2001, 106). In the first, he argues for what has come to be known as moral management, a “moral sensitivity…associated with satisfactory output and employee satisfaction” (Denhardt 104). In the second, Golembiewski takes a “laboratory approach to organizational change” (Denhardt 106). The author identifies five metavalues that guide this approach to organizational change
*
1. “acceptance of inquiry based on mutual accessibility and open communication
2. expanded consciousness and recognition of choice, especially the willingness to experiment with new behaviors and choose those that seem most effective
3. a collaborative concept of authority, emphasizing cooperation and responsibility for others
4. authenticity in interpersonal relationships“ (Denhardt 106-107).
Golembiewski’s moral management and meta values are highly compatible with subsequently discussed Theory Y management, Type-Z Organizations, and a humanist approach to workplace organization.
Given its interdisciplinary nature, one might visualize public sector organization theory as a helix of management and government scholars. Management theory began as a strictly rational, positivist dogma through a humanist revolution, and includes a modern reinterpretations and explorations. Similarly, government scholars in the United States first delineated a border between politics and administration that has been re-evaluated and re-interpreted throughout the history of the discipline. Today, public sector management incorporates developments in private management theory with a renegotiation of the policy analyst’s role in the political process.
[edit] Early management theory
Due in part to the historic context in which the field of public administration emerged, early management and government scholars attempted to be comprehensive rationalists. This required that they also ascribe to a positivist reality. That is, scholars seek a factual basis for drawing conclusions based upon observations and logical deduction. Positivists believe these methods yield factual, solid, unwavering truths, similar to the laboratory sciences. The early theorists sometimes lost sight of the unpredictable nature of social science.
Early management theorists were almost exclusively private sector scholars. The concept of an employee as a manipulable tool was another feature of early theorists. By creating the proper conditions, management could better shape employees to fit the needs of the organization; the company was primary in early management theory. Though somewhat naive from a modern perspective, early management scholars set a precedent for systematic, unbiased decision-making. Frederick Winslow Taylor and Henri Fayol were two of the many seminal management theorists of particular importance to public sector management.
Fredrick W. Taylor is probably most remembered for "scientific management." This is commonly described as the method by which the "one best way" to complete a task is discovered. In a 1915 address, Taylor outlined the mutual advantages of labor saving technology and processes, implicitly touting the significance of his model. Taylor argued that objective empirical observation would eventually yield an optimally efficient process by which a labor task could be completed. (Taylor in Shafritz and Ott 2001, 61)[19]
Much like Taylor, Henri Fayol was originally a private sector theorist. In General and Industrial Management (1916), Fayol outlined what he called the “General Principles of Management.” The author acknowledges, from a positivist perspective, the flexibility of management studies. However, his fourteen principles use in much the same matter-of-fact tone as Taylor’s. Fayol’s 14 principles included the division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interest to the general interest, re-numeration of personnel, centralization, scalar chain, order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative, and espirit de corps.
His elaboration upon each principle can be summarized as an argument for a logically structured organization with an efficient (non-duplicative) management chain. The author highlighted tension between individual and organizational interests, a theme that would be taken up again by subsequent humanists. Finally, his principles advocated a management style and structure intended to foster a healthy, spirited workforce, with a sense of loyalty to the company. Taylor and Fayol represent early, private sector, management scholars whose work would be succeeded by humanist managers from both the public and private sectors.
[edit] Early political administration theory
Government or political science scholars dominated what would become the public side of organizational theory. Woodrow Wilson, PhD. and 28th president, is remembered as one such political scientist who first distinguished public administrators from politicians. In an 1887 article, “The Study of Administration” Wilson called a professional workforce of public sector employees. He further argued for efficiency and responsibility to the public as key criteria by which this workforce would operate.
His work marks the beginning of an era, at least in the United States, during which public administration has been thought of as a distinct field of study and practice. Since Wilson, public administration has been a discipline separate from politics, worthy of academic study and independent discussion. The idea that business-like administrators should separate themselves from politics in daily operations remains Wilson’s chief, most enduring contribution.
Subsequent interpretations and the eventual development of rival dichotomies are perhaps a tribute to the importance of Wilson’s first distinction. The politics administration survived the mid-twentieth century in the works of Leonard White, Frank Goodnow, and W.F. Willoughby, but these scholars did not leave the original dichotomy as they had found it. Leonard White authored The Study of Public Administration (1948), a standard in the field for years (Denhardt 2000, 44). In it, the author argued that “the study of public administration…needs to be related to the broad generalizations of political theory concerned with such matters as justice, liberty, obedience, and the role of the state in human affairs “ (cited in Denhardt 2000, 44). The desire to restore a degree of reliability, merit, and workability to modernizing democracy was a major impetus for the continued division of politics and administration.
In a related work, Frank Goodnow, Policy and Administration (1900), takes a local government perspective to comment on the separation of powers in government. He argues that the strict interpretation of the separation of powers in the constitution has been violated many times for good reason (Denhardt 2000, 46). “Therefore, it is appropriate to rethink the formal theory of separation of powers so that our theory might more closely match our practice” (46). The unique perspective offers valuable insight into other trade-offs, including that between legislative versus administrative centralization at the state level (Denhardt 47).
W.F. Willoughby, ‘The Government of Modern States (1936), also contributed to the dialogue. Early in his career, Wolloughby argued for a somewhat strict separation of government powers. The executive branch was to enforce laws as they were created by the legislature and interpreted by the courts (Denhardt 47). However, he later recognized difficulties in this hard-line position. Consequently, Willoughby suggested there are five classes of governmental powers: legislative, judicial, executive, electorate, and administrative. These classes existed in addition to the three traditional branches of government. The theories of White, Goodnow, and Willougby represent nuanced elaborations of a dichotomy much like that of Wilson. However, this dichotomy would be more directly challenged with suggested alternatives by the next generation of public administration scholars.
[edit] Emergence as a distinct field
Luther Gulick and Paul Appleby were among those who argued for dichotomies that were wholly different from Wilson's. Gulick has been called a strong personification of public administration in the United States (Fry 1989, 73). Gulick ascribes to many of Wilson’s themes, including a “science of administration,” increased efficiency, structural reform of the bureaucracy, and augmented executive authority. The chief executive coordinates the otherwise disaggregate activities of a large, complex organization such as a government. However, Gulick challenged Wilson’s strict dichotomy by suggesting every action of a public administrator represents a “seamless web of discretion and interaction.” “The administrator’s role is to understand and coordinate public policy and interpret policy directives to the operating services, but with unquestioned loyalty to the decision of elected officials” (Fry 1989, 81).
Paul Appleby argued against the increasingly dominant theory that administrators were somehow neutral policy actors. He argued that “administrators are significant policy actors who influence the policy-making process in several different ways” (Denhadt 49). Administrators are charged with the execution of public programs, the analysis of data for decision recommendations, and interpreting the law as it is carried out on a regular basis. Consequently, administrators influence and even produce policy on a daily basis. Despite their break with Wilson on the issue of completely separating administration from politics, these divergent scholars agreed that a professional workforce remain educated, skilled, and exist in meritous competition for public sector employment. Thus, Gulick and Appleby are major theorists whose theories truly break with Wilson's original public administration theories.
[edit] A consolidated discipline
In addition to Gulick and Appleby, Herbert Simon, Chester Barnard, and Charles Lindblom are among the first of those recognized as early American public administrators. These men ushered in an era during which the field gained recognition as independent and unique, despite its multidisciplinary nature. In Simon’s Administrative Behavior (1948), the argument is made that decision-making is the essence of management. The premises with which decisions are made are therefore integral to management. Simon also contributed a fact-value dichotomy, a theoretical separation to discern management, decisions based upon fact versus those made based on values. Since one cannot make completely responsible decisions with public resources based solely on personal values, one must attempt to upon objectively determined facts.
Simon developed other relevant theories as well. Similar to Lindblom’s subsequently discussed critique of comprehensive rationality, Simon also taught that a strictly economic man, one who maximizes returns or values by making decisions based upon complete information in unlimited time, is unrealistic. Instead, most public administrators use a sufficient amount of information to make a satisfactory decision:, they “satisfice.”
Charles Lindblom also expressed disaffection with the comprehensive rational model in a 1959 article, “The Science of Muddling Through.” He argued for “successive limited comparison" (81). [20]” Though the result of this process was not as rational or ultimately as reliable as decisions truly rational methods, incremental decision-making is undoubtedly preferable to making a decision “off-the-cuff” or those that consume extensive resources. Incrementalism's value lies in the realistic expectation that practitioners will be able to use it.
Chester Barnard was also one of the watershed scholars. That is, his theories would bridge what would become a gap between managers like F.W. Taylor and Henri Fayol with subsequent humanists: Mary Follett, Elton Mayo, and Chris Argyris. Barnard published “The Economy of Incentives” (1938), in an attempt to explain individual participation in an organization. Barnard explained organizations as systems of exchange. Low-level employees must have more incentive to remain with the organization for which they exchange their labor and loyalty. The organization (and higher level employees) must derive sufficient benefit from its employees to keep them. The net pull of the organization is determined by material rewards, environmental conditions, and other intangibles like recognition.
Scholars including Gulick, Appleby, Simon, Lindblom, and Barnard are among the early, independent public administrators. We will see, however, that many of their ideas and justifications for a positive, pro-active government are indebted, in fact, to the contributions of numerous female philanthropists (Acker 1992; [21] Stivers 2002[22]).
[edit] Public management
Several theorists bridged the gap between strictly private and public sector management. Luther Gulick negotiated a generic theory of organization. Max Weber exploring sociologist, explored the ideal bureaucracy in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism(Denhardt 2000, 27). He claimed that bureaucracies are organizations that manage resources for citizens (Weber in Shafritz and Ott, 2001, 73). The "physical" characteristics the organization and the position of public officials were essential to its structure. Weber held that graduated authority and equitable, formalized procedures guard against the subjective abuse of power by bureaucrats.
Weber admired bureaucracy for its trustworthiness. The bureaucracy was constituted by a group of professional, ethical public officials. These servants dedicate themselves to the public in return for security of job tenure among the many advantages of public employment. By rationalizing the organization of individuals and recognizing the professional nature of the field, Weber implicitly supports Wilson's politics-administration dichotomy.
[edit] Humanist era
Humanists embrace a dynamic concept of an employee and management techniques. This requires a theoretical shift away from the idea that an employee is a cog in the industrial machine. Rather, employees are unique individuals with goals, needs, desires, etc. Mary Parker Follett, Elton Mayo, Chris Argyris are among the most prominent humanists. Mary Parker Follett claims that conflict is neither good nor bad, it is simply inevitable (Fry 1989, 98).[23] Elton teaches that humans are social beings whose individualism is defined in part by participation in the group.
Chris Argyris, a writer commonly associated with business management authored Personality and Organization in 1957. He argues that “formal organizational structures and traditional management practices tend to be at odds with certain basic trends toward individual growth and development”[24]. Argyris continues,Executives must therefore fuse basic human tendencies for growth and development with demands of the organization’s task.
[edit] Rethinking power and management
The humanist era ushered in other possible interpretations of such topics as power and management. One of the most significant was Douglas McGregor’s “Theory X and Theory Y.” McGregor's work provided a basis for a management framework, a structure upon whose rungs the classic and new-aged management might be hung (Denhardt 99-100). First, commonly held by early management theorists, Theory X begins with the assumption that humans possess an inherent aversion to work. Employees must therefore be coerced and controlled if management expects to see results. Further, lazy humans prefer direction bordering micromanagement whenever possible (Denhardt 99).
Theory Y is much more compatible with the humanist tradition. This begins with the assumption that work is as natural for humans as rest or play. Further, employees will direct and control themselves as they complete objectives. Humans learn naturally and seek responsibility (Denhardt 100). Consequently, managers need only to steer employees in a cooperative manner toward goals that serve the organization. There is room for many to create and share power.
The Z-Organization can be thought of as a complimentary third element to McGregor's dichotomy. Z-organizations are a Japanese organizational model.[25] Similar to Theory-Y management, Z organizations place a large degree of responsibility upon the employees. Further, relatively low-level employees are entrusted with the freedom to be creative, “wander around the organization” and become truly unique, company-specific employees. However, employees achieve only after “agreeing on a central set of objectives and ways of doing business” (Oichi 435).
In Z Organizations, decision-making (Simon’s ostensible basis of management) is democratic and participatory. Despite the many advantages of this organizational model, there are several draw-backs. These include the depredation of a large professional distance--de-personalization is impossible in Z-organizations. A high level of self-discipline is also necessary. Z-organizations tend to be homogeneous and In Japan where this organizational form is popular, management is dominated by males and foreigners are a rarity.
[edit] Organizational power
An organization has an array of options for delegating power to its lower level employees. Bown and Lawlwer (2006)identify a spectrum of empowerment possible for service workers in private sector employment.[26] Low-level workers can either be thought of as belonging to a production line and given little individual decision-making freedom (power). These workers can be thought of as individual actors, given discretion to interpret a situation as it arises, and make reasonably independent decisions themselves. Most organizations allow their employees to operate somewhere between these extremes depending on several criteria the organization has as a whole.
Henry Mintzburg contributes to the power discussion with his article, “The Power Game and its Players.[27]" He writes that organizations consist of many individuals, each drawing a source of power from their position within the organization, knowledge skills and abilities, and relative role in that organization. Each also works to increase or maximize his or her power.
Moss Kanter published “Power Failure in Management Circuits” to address symptoms of unhealthy organizational power struggles. The reader learns that many symptoms of dysfunctional organizations can, in fact, be traced to power problems.
[edit] New public management
New public administration theories have emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. New frameworks increasingly acknowledge that government is seen by citizens through administrators, front line, service deliverers. These are the employees that execute decisions by elected officials.
There has been a rigorous critique and emphasis upon implicit problems with new public management. First, a reliance upon competition and market forces assumes that individual self interest will effectively bring about an equitable social and economic reality for citizens. Henry Mintzberg’s protests,“I am not a mere customer of my government, thank you.” (cited by Dendhardt 2001, 77). “I expect something more than arm’s length trading and something less than the encouragement to consume.” (Denhardt 152 citing Mintzberg 1992, 77). “Do we really want our governments…hawking products?” While greater government efficiency, an individual emphasis, and lower cost operations of new public management may be initially attractive, Mintzberg and Denhardt highlight many incompatibilities of such values with justice, equity, security, and other important government values.
Further, encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit in administrators carries the benefits of innovation and productivity. These benefits are balanced by necessary costs. An entrepreneurial attitude tends to be accompanied by a willingness to bend the rules, reduced level of accountability, and a motivation to take risk with public resources are potentially costly (Denhardt 152-153). Despite what might appear to be a destructive criticism of a new model for public service delivery, Denhardt advocates new public service, one that carefully navigates the intricate differences between public and private organizations.
[edit] Feminist interpretations
The simple phrase, "feminist interpretation" carries relevant concepts, often stimulating an emotional response. However, if one can move past prejudice or negativity popularly attributed to the word, one might find important challenges to the implicit assumptions upon which many modern institutions and disciplines are built. Specifically, feminists uncover and challenge the assumption that a heritage of male-dominated public administration has yielded anything other than a "masculine interpretation" of the field. The simple adjective, feminist, asks the public administrator to evaluate his or her premises in a search for masculine interpretations, buried beneath a century of academic dialogue and practice (Stivers, 2002).
Many of the responsibilities public employees currently carry are rooted in nineteenth and twentieth century female philanthropists. Women volunteered their time to contribute to the communal welfare, innovating the rationale and justifications subsequently borrowed by paid male advocates of positive government. Government employees that advocated a public responsibility to assist the poor and underprivileged with material aid and necessary services. Due in part to women's role as pioneers, such activities were (and in actuality still are) perceived to be feminine.
This and other traditional features are used to make the argument that males have a persistent advantage in professional organizations. Subtle, gendered processes perpetuate the advantage, vehemently denied by men and women alike.(Acker 1992). These may be overt, sexual jokes or discrimination in promotion, or covert, organizational processes and decisions apparently independent of gender considerations on their face.
Processes fall into four categories:
1. Production of gender divisions-hierarchies are gendered
2. Creating "symbols, images, and forms of consciousness that explicate, justify, and, more rarely, oppose gender divisions” (Shafritz and Ott, 393).
3. Interactions between individuals that “enact dominance and subordination and create alliances and exclusions.”
4. “Internal mental work of individuals as they consciously construct their understandings of the organization’s gendered structure”
Comparable Worth is another, related topic [28]. Difficult, unpopular questions, like whether women are paid less because they ware women, are explored by contributing scholars. Women might be victims of discrimination because of societal expectations of their biological and psychological state of mind. That is, women bear children and are most often the primary care-taker of children. If a young, newly-wed women is pitted against a similarly qualified, young, newly-wed male for a promotion or position, do expectations of gender roles influence management decisions? Further, to what degree do women possess sufficient power of self-determination?
While feminists are often attacked as radical an unfounded in their claims, the group provides valuable food for thought. That is, questioning premises and assumptions that have led administrators to truths is important for judging the value of these truths.
[edit] New public service
Among the many new trends in government administration, the “government scholar” is being rapidly replaced by the “policy analyst.” The change in specialty reflects a shift in focus toward policy outputs and outcomes. Government rhetoric would be expected to yield to measurable impacts of public action. Government professionals are shifting from a focus upon government actors to observation and quantification at all steps of the policy process. For example, domestic social programming and support like senior center activities, welfare, Medicare, and youth groups have measurable inputs and outputs that can be quantified and examined. Effectiveness and efficiency can be estimated with dollars, opinion surveys, confidence indexes, and the like, to quantify the output, impact, and value of such programming.
New concepts of administrative roles challenge both the politics-administration and fact-value dichotomies. In the former case,administrators serving as policy analysts inevitably influence the information they generate, thereby impacting policy. In the case of the former, a newly constructed bureaucracy, representative of the populace it serves, personal values of administrators my reflect the values of the citizenry. In such a case, the necessity of a distinction between fact and value is compromised. A degree of subjectivity, interjection of personal values into factual decision-making may be preferred by the population. In place of alternate theoretical dichotomies, policy analysts and workplace diversity essentially compromise the value of the dichotomy mentality.
In the new public service, citizens are expected to develop a sense of community in addition to personal interests, pushing the threshold past simple self-interest of the new public management. Further, public employees draw heavily upon the variety of humanist management theories that have developed in the private and public sectors. John Gardner writes that healthy communities consisting of good community members “deal with each other humanely, respect individual differences and value the integrity of each person” (cited by Denhardt 2000, 183). Similarly, Robert Bellah, The Good Society , argues that the relationships, the space between these communities and the government, ought to then be relevant.
Smaller, intermediary institutions like churches, families, work groups, and civic associations, are also participants in the negotiation of the newly recognized space for public activity. Such commitment carries tangible benefits. Robert Putnam empirically demonstrates that communities whose citizens are civically engaged live in communities of reduced poverty, crime, better health and improved educational systems. Organization thereby represents a form of “social capital.” Capital being the aspects of social life, like the aforementioned networks, that “facilitate the coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Denhardt 185 citing Putnam 1995, 67).
After Wilson’s initial distinction between a professional workforce and elected officials, nuanced variations maintained his theoretical trajectory. Taylor and Fayol, Theory-X managers, initially dominated the management circuit until humanists like Mayo, Follett, and Argyris hung new concepts of organization and management on McGregor’s Theory-X/Theory-Y framework. During this time, truly independent administrators including Gulick, Simon, Barnard, and Lindblom forged a significant new field.
A fact-value dichotomy challenged Wilson’s politics-administration dichotomy for dominance, management science was defocused on a revolutionary new unit of analysis: decision premises. Organizations, viewed as systems of exchange, had to recognize employees, even low-level line workers, as partners brokering for adequate compensation and fulfillment. Even the comprehensive rational model, the most scientific of all possible decision-making methods, was challenged as highly impractical. If managers instead make “successive limited comparisons,” they can make informed decisions in a timely, affordable manner.
This dynamic evolution, indeed a changing system of intellectual exchange, continues today as the popular new public management dominates the field. Public administration should arguably be a field dedicated to service of its owners, not mere customers. Indeed, citizens ought to take an active role in their government as an owner would in a business. A government that is administered by a meritocracy, professionals with powerful analytic and literary abilities. Managers might soon find themselves operating with an ethical commitment to values, serve the public, an empowerment attitude with a concept of shared power, pragmatic incrementalism, and a dedication to the public. “Unlike the new public management, which is built on economic concepts such as the maximization of self-interest, the new public service is built on the idea of the public interest, the idea of public administrators serving citizens and indeed becoming fully engaged with those they serve. (Denhardt 2001, 190).
[edit] Decision-making models and public administration
Ambox style.png
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (April 2009)
Given the array of duties public administrators find themselves performing, the professional administrator might refer to a theoretical framework from which he or she might work. Indeed, many public and private administrative scholars have devised and modified decision-making models.
[edit] William Niskanen's budget-maximizing
An relatively recent rational choice variation, proposed by William Niskanen in a 1971 article budget-maximizing model, argued that rational bureaucrats will universally seek to increase their budgets, thereby contributing to state growth, measured by expenditure. Niskanen served on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors; his model underpinned what has been touted as curtailed public spending and increased privatization. However, budgeted expenditures and the growing deficit during the Reagan administration is evidence of a different reality. A range of pluralist authors have critiqued Niskanen's universalist approach. These scholars have argued that officials tend also to be motivated by considerations of the public interest.
[edit] Patrick Dunleavy's bureau shaping
The bureau-shaping model, a modification of Niskanen, holds that rational bureaucrats only maximize the part of their budget that they spend on their own agency's operations or give to contractors and interest groups. Groups that are able to organize a "flowback" of benefits to senior officials would, according to this theory, receive increased budgetary attention. For instance, rational officials will get no benefit from paying out larger welfare checks to millions of low-income citizens because this does not serve a bureaucrats' goals. Accordingly, one might should instead expect a jurisdiction to seek budget increases for defense and security purposes in place of domestic social programming. If we refer back to Reagan once again, Dunleavy's bureau shaping model accounts for the alleged decrease in the "size" of government while spending did not, in fact, decrease. Domestic entitlement programming was financially de-emphasized for military research and personnel.
[edit] Ethics: (Denhardt 127-128)
Denhardt identifies two approaches to ethics in public sector work: a more rigorous, philosophical studies in ethics that can be applied to the field.
* Alternately, administrators might simply assume “an ethical obligation to support ‘regime values.” Essentially, public employees should refer to the constitution and Supreme Court decisions for specifics on equity and justice.
* John Rohr, Ethics for Bureaucrats (1978)
* Terry Cooper The Responsible Administrator (1990)
* John Burke-Bureaucratic Responsibility (1986).
* Kathryn G. Denhardt-The Ethics of Public Service (1988)
[edit] Notable scholars
Notable scholars of public administration have come from a range of fields. In the period before public administration existed as its own independent discipline, scholars contributing to the field came from economics, sociology, management, political science, law, and, other related fields. More recently, scholars from public administration and public policy have contributed important studies and theories.
For a longer list of academics and theorists, see the List of notable public administration scholars article.
[edit] References
1. ^ Dubois, Hans F. W.; Fattore, Giovanni (2009). International Journal of Public Administration. 32(8). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 704-727. doi:10.1080/01900690902908760. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913084156. "The field of public administration knows many concepts. By focusing on one such concept, this research shows how definitions can be deceptive..."
2. ^ Wilson, Woodrow, "The Study of Administration," Political Science Quarterly 2 (June 1887)
3. ^ Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
4. ^ Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May – Jun., 1996), pp. 247–255
5. ^ Denhardt , Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt (2000). "The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering." Public Administration Review 60(6)
6. ^ Diane Stone, (2008) 'Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks,' Journal of Policy Sciences.
7. ^ Cleveland, Frederick A.(1915)"Evolution of the Budget Idea in the United States". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 15-35.
8. ^ Key Jr., V. O.(1940)American Political Science Review 34. 1137-40.
9. ^ Cleveland, Frederick A.(1915)"Evolution of the Budget Idea in the United States". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 15-35.
10. ^ Willoughby, William F. (1918) "The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States". D. Appleton and Company for the Institute for Government Research. 1-8.
11. ^ Key Jr., V. O. (December 1940) American Political Science Review 34. 1137-40
12. ^ Lewis, Verne E. (Winter 1952) Public Administration Review 12.1. 43-54
13. ^ Walsh, Mary Williams. "Richard A. Musgrave, 96, Theoretician of Public Finance, Dies". January 20, 2007. New York Times: Business.
14. ^ Wildavsky, Aaron. (Autumn 1961) Public Administration Review 21. 183-190.
15. ^ Schick, Allen. (December 1966) Public Administration Review 26. 243-58.
16. ^ Rubin, Irene S. (1990) "Budget Theory and Budget Practice: How Good the Fit?" Public Administration Review March/April 1990. 179-89.
17. ^ Easton
18. ^ Denhard, Robert B. 2000. Theories of Public Organizations. Orlando Florida: Harcourt Brace & Co.
19. ^ Shafritz, Jay M. and J. Steven Ott. 2001. The Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
20. ^ Lindblom, Charles 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review. Spring 19.
21. ^ Acker, Joan. 1992. "Gendering Organizational Theory." in The Classics of Organization Theory. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 391-399
22. ^ Stivers, Camilla.1992 From the Ground(s) Up: Women Reformers and the Rise of the Administrative State”in Gender Images in Public Administration. Camilla Stivers ed. Sage.
23. ^ Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
24. ^ cited in Denhardt 2001, 100-101
25. ^ William Ouichi. 1981. “The Z Organization." in Classics of Organization Theory. Shafritz and Ott eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
26. ^ Bowen, David and Edward Lawler. 2006. “The Empowerment of service Workers; What, Why, How and When.” in Managing Innovation and Change David Mayle. Sage.
27. ^ Mintzburg, Henry. 2001. "The Power Game and its Players." in The Classics of Organization Theory. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott Eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 353-360.
28. ^ Acker, Joan. 1989. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class and Pay Equity . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G. (2009), 'Definitions and typologies in public administration research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of Public Administration, 32(8): pp. 704-727.
American Foreign Policy Lecture Notes
here are currently no lecture notes for American Foreign Policy. To submit a lecture note select "Submit A Link" from the menu.
Varsity Notes is the world's largest directory of free lecture notes, containing free american foreign policy lecture notes and free lecture notes for numerous other academic disciplines. Our free political science course notes will help you succeed in any undergraduate or gradute american foreign policy course at your college or university. Free cheat notes in american foreign policy are also valuable as a self study tool for high school and college students or anyone searching for free resources on political science.
COMPLETE NOTES FOR MA.POLITICAL SCIENCE........ FOR SALE
COMPLETE NOTES OF MA POLITICAL SCIENCE PART 1 AND 2
INCLUDING 20 BOOKS
NOTES ARE MADE BY A PROFESSOR OF PUNJAB UNIVERSITY LAHORE
VERY PRECIOUS NOTES
1ST DEVISION IS 100% GUARANTED IF YOU PREPARE THEM
NOT NEED TO WRITE SIGNEL WORD
JUST BUY AND PREPARE THEM IN SHORT PERIODE OF TIME
CONTACT 0304-951 43 41
User Information
* Anonymous
* 0304-951 43 41
Ad Options
* Reply to Ad
* Add to favorites
* Add a comment
* Save to phone
* Flag as Scam
*
Ads By Google
High Denomination Notes
High denomination notes bought/sold $500- $1000- $5,000- $10,000 - www.thecurrencyhouse.com
Sermon Notes
Inspire Your Church With Spirit- Filled Sermons. Instant access! - www.PreachIt.org/Sermon-Notes
Learn English in Urdu
Now learn English Free at home online Notes in Urdu ! - www.123freenet.com
Pakistan News Service
Pakistan News in Urdu and English Browse the Latest Headlines - CentralAsiaOnline.com/pakistan
Preparing for Medical Ent
Choose & Buy from 100s of books For Medical Entrance Exams in India
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Chicago is a dirty word
In the drive to diminish President Barack Obama, Republicans and conservative pundits have taken to slapping his work with the label of "Chicago-style politics."
It must poll well.
The dig has become code word for dirty political tricks and dishonest campaigning. And it may well make sense to outsiders who instinctively view the Windy City as a den of Al Capones and on-the-take politicians.
House Republican Leader John Boehner had a new take on how politics is played in Chicago today. He said in a statement issued to the press that Chicago-style politics is "when you can't win an argument based on the facts" you instead "launch vicious political attacks."
The context: Boehner is firing back at the White House for trying to malign the many conservative talk show hosts who repeatedly call Obama a racist and a socialist on prime time Fox. He calls the tactic "flat-out despicable."
Now we don't need to get into the background of this latest tussle. But we do have an interest in how 'Chicago-style politics' is portrayed at the national level.
The problem with this label is that in order to have a debate on the facts or 'launch vicious political attacks' in Chicago you would actually have to have a functioning political system of competing parties and ideas.
Chicago hasn't seen that in decades.
The system now is all about who is in or out of good graces with the mayor.
Even arguments over the Olympic bid or sky-high parking meter rates quickly disintegrate into overwhelming victories for Daley on the city council floor.
Now there is plenty to criticize 'Chicago-style politics' on.
It has long been race-bait focused with politicians pitting pieces of the cultural quilt against each other for electoral gain or sucking up to clearly corrupt elements of one group because of their political muscle.
But 'vicious political attacks' in Chicago are something Mayor Richard Daley has worked long and hard to silence.
Ex-GOP chair's political ambitions reveal much about brewing primary
For four years as chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, Andy McKenna tried to breathe life into the winded institution, searching for winning candidates and working to head off bitter primaries.
Yet it appears McKenna was simultaneously weighing his own plans for public office, including his name this spring in an internal party poll aimed at testing potential candidates.
The poll, obtained recently by the Daily Herald, has sparked anger from some Republicans who question why the former party steward's name would be included when he was vetting other bidders, especially now that McKenna has indeed decided to run for governor.
To some, the poll and McKenna's entrance into the race reflect the state of the Illinois GOP in recent years, often viewed as a ship adrift with too many lieutenants fighting over the wheel. And the Republican primary for governor has so far shaped up likewise: a pack of moderately known politicians struggling for attention and battling over a few key fundraisers and organizers.
The party poll was commissioned by McKenna as chairman in April and his own name is in it as a possible candidate for both governor and U.S. senator. Other Republican governor hopefuls are upset McKenna has gone from party leader to primary challenger.
"Only Andy McKenna can address the many conflicts surrounding his candidacy," said Brad Hahn, spokesman for DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom, who also is running for governor. "We are anxious to hear his explanation."
McKenna declined to be interviewed about the poll. His spokesman declined to answer questions, but issued a statement.
"I'm not sure the story of a political organization conducting a poll seven months ago that included 20 people requires much more than a yawn," said Lance Trover.
The packed GOP primary for governor comes as the Republicans have perhaps their best chance in nearly a decade to recapture power in Illinois given the fall of Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the constant call for tax increases from Democrats.
"It is a reflection of the disarray in the Republican Party and the lack of a farm team that gets you this kind of field," says Kent Redfield, a political-science professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
So far, most of the Republican candidates are relatively fresh to the statewide ballot, including Schillerstrom of Naperville, state Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale, conservative commentator Dan Proft of Wheaton and Hinsdale businessman Adam Andrzejewski.
Others have been on a statewide run before, however unsuccessfully. State Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington came in third in the 2006 GOP primary for governor. McKenna of Chicago took fourth in a crowded 2004 Republican primary field for U.S. Senate with 15 percent of the vote.
The field appears likely to remain crowded even though there is a chance some could drop out in advance of the Nov. 2 filing deadline to actually get on the primary ballot.
The primary's dynamics might still dramatically shift if former two-term Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan of Elmhurst enters the fray, as he has signaled recently that he will.
"At this point, every candidate can write a scenario where they can appeal to a certain group and if all the stars align, they end up winning in a seven-person field," Redfield said. "You don't yet have a front-runner that kind of clears the field."
With so many candidates, many Republicans are fearful the fighting will alienate key voting blocs and fundraisers, risking the party's chances in the general election.
"We have had problems like this before and it didn't bode well for us," said U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert of Hinsdale. "But everyone has been talking about how we will have to work together."
For his part, new party chairman Pat Brady hopes that whatever blood spills before the February primary will be quickly washed away so Republicans can focus on winning the general election in November 2010.
"Voice your ideas in the primary as best you can," the St. Charles attorney told fellow Republicans in a City Club of Chicago speech earlier this month. "Then - win or lose - reconcile and unite with all Republicans and go on to contest the general. That is how we will win."
In fact, it's vital in order for the party to have a prayer at winning in the general election, says Paul Green, a political-science professor at Roosevelt University.
Especially since the suburbs in the last decade have turned more Democratic, undermining a region the Republicans had long counted on to balance Chicago.
"They keep fishing in places where there just aren't as many fish," Green said.
For now, the results of the April Republican poll are telling. None of the nine names floated in the race for governor came out with a convincing lead and most drew few signs of recognition.
For McKenna's part, the poll showed him faring better in the Senate race than the one for governor.
Reader Comments
Click here to read 6 comments or post a comment
1. Comments are not edited and don't represent the views of Daily Herald
2. To understand what is and isn't allowed please read our comments policy
3. To report an inappropriate post click the icon beneath the comment
Have something constructive to say? Be the first to comment!
Place a comment
Impact of two-chambered Congress focus of political science conference
Political scientists from across the nation with a strong research-based interest in the impact of bicameralism on issues ranging from elections to policy will gather on campus for a two-day conference.
“Legislative Elections, Process and Policy: The Influence of Bicameralism,” hosted by the Department of Political Science and the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, will take place Oct. 23 and 24 in Wilson Hall, Room 115.
Bicameralism is defined as having two separate and distinct lawmaking assemblies, such as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Conference topics include: democratic elections, party polarization, bicameralism and representational issues, and policy effects of bicameralism.
The conference, which is free and open to the public, was organized by Professor of Political Science Bruce Oppenheimer. Other participating Vanderbilt political scientists include John Geer, David Lewis, Josh Clinton, Marc Hetherington and Christian Grose.
Recalling the passage of time in East Berlin, November 1989
Twenty years ago, on October 19, 1989, I found myself in East Berlin reporting on a crisis that was to lead (though very few experts predicted it at the time) to the fall of the Berlin Wall only three weeks later. I have been asked many times since then if this was the ”best” story I’ve ever covered, in the dual sense of “biggest” and “most enjoyable”. I have usually answered Yes in the first sense of the question, but No in the second sense.
For the truth is that it wasn’t an enjoyable experience at all. From early morning to late at night, I spent the day attached to a clunky word processor in a grim, East German government-supervised press centre in Mohrenstrasse, very close to the Wall. There I churned out thousands upon thousands of words about the accelerating disintegration of the regime for my pitilessly news-driven employers, the Reuters news agency.
Sometimes I would go out to watch a street protest - I once got talking with Günter Schabowski, a Politburo member, who was trying without much luck to reason with the demonstrators. Or I would catch up with opposition activists at the Gethsemane church in the Prenzlauer Berg district. But before long, it was back to the merciless office grind. I couldn’t go to the big anti-communist protests in Leipzig and other provincial cities, because my East German visa restricted me to East Berlin.
At night I would drive from Mohrenstrasse to an apartment rented by Reuters on Schönhauserallee. This is today one of Berlin’s busiest shopping streets. But in late 1989 East Berlin at night was a city as dark and silent as a corner of hell. On the ground floor below the apartment was a Kneipe, a pub. After the Wall fell, it emerged that the Stasi secret police used the pub as a base to monitor the goings-on in my apartment. How they must have enjoyed hearing me swear at the top of my voice about the iniquities of a) East German communism and b) Reuters.
During the entire three weeks, I only made it once across the Wall to West Berlin for a night out. And it is this little episode, not the dramatic events of November 9, that is most vivid in my memory now. For as I returned to Checkpoint Charlie just before midnight and handed in my passport for inspection, I detected something extraordinary - the flicker of a smile on the face of the uniformed East German border guard in his booth.
Comparing my features with the photo in my passport, taken several years earlier, he had clearly observed that I had lost a considerable amount of hair. He peered at me behind his thin-rimmed glasses, sighed and said, “Das ist der Lauf der Zeit” - which, loosely translated, means “That’s what the passage of time does to you.”
It was almost a human touch - but, like everything in the German Democratic Republic, only almost.
In-depth news takes a backseat to website promotion
From Ms Joanna Davis.
Sir, This is the first occasion on which I have contacted a journalist to comment on anything, but I simply had to tell Philip Stephens how much I agree with his comments on the BBC.
During my 20 years based in Hong Kong, I have been a constant user of the BBC, both television and, more importantly, the BBC World Service radio. BBC World News simply advises me to go online after a three-minute “wrap” on major world news items or – even more maddeningly – prompts me to feed it content via its website. Isn't that their job? What is the problem? I now watch al-Jazeera or ABC from Australia, both of which concentrate on news, with some depth.
But the radio, so important! Documentaries, interviews and the simply splendidly lucid Peter Day and others remain first class but, again, what has happened to the news content? News with context and background? There are no paid advertisements eating into airtime, but “soundbites” of news stories, not coverage!
I am convinced that if I listen or watch with a stopwatch, and time the amount of BBC website self-promotion, it will outweigh the "gap" for "real news".
Thank you, Mr Stephens, for a jolly good article, and thank heavens you chaps are still hitting the mark daily.
Joanna Davis,
Burden of proof
From Mr Derek Robinson.
Sir, I suggest that Simon James (Letters, October 20) should reflect on how he would feel if, without intending to accuse one of your journalists of acting unprofessionally, his words are nevertheless construed by the journalist as defamatory. Can Mr James see the justice in the presumption that he has libelled the journalist, and that the onus is upon him to demonstrate otherwise?
Derek Robinson,
Richmond, Surrey, UK
Political science has been recognised
Sir, Elinor Ostrom is not the first political scientist to win a Nobel economics prize (Letters, October 15). Herbert Simon, who got his PhD in political science at the University of Chicago in 1943, won it in 1978. James Buchanan (1986) was also a political scientist.
Actually, the prize is awarded in "economic sciences" and includes political scientists, psychologists and mathematicians.
Michael Roskin,
Professor Emeritus of Political Science,
Lycoming College,
Williamsport, PA, US
Field Study: Just How Relevant Is Political Science
After Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, this month proposed prohibiting the National Science Foundation from “wasting any federal research funding on political science projects,” political scientists rallied in opposition, pointing out that one of this year’s Nobel winners had been a frequent recipient of the very program now under attack.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, above, seeks to end government grants to political science projects, including one that the Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, below, took part in.
Enlarge This Image
Ryan Dorgan
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
* Read All Comments (28) »
Yet even some of the most vehement critics of the Coburn proposal acknowledge that political scientists themselves vigorously debate the field’s direction, what sort of questions it pursues, even how useful the research is.
Much of the political science work financed by the National Science Foundation is both rigorous and valuable, said Jeffrey C. Isaac, a professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, where one new winner of the Nobel in economic science, the political scientist Elinor Ostrom, teaches. “But we’re kidding ourselves if we think this research typically has the obvious public benefit we claim for it,” he said. “We political scientists can and should do a better job of making the public relevance of our work clearer and of doing more relevant work.”
Mr. Isaac is the editor of Perspectives on Politics, a journal that was created by the field’s professional organization to bridge the divide after a group of political scientists led a revolt against the growing influence of statistical methods and mathematics-based models in the discipline. In 2000 an anonymous political scientist who called himself Mr. Perestroika roused scores of colleagues to protest the organization, the American Political Science Association, and its flagship journal, The American Political Science Review, arguing that the two were marginalizing scholars who focused on traditional research based on history, culture and archives.
Though there is still jockeying over jobs, power and prestige — particularly in an era of shrinking budgets — much of that animus has quieted, and most political scientists agree that a wide range of approaches makes sense.
What remains, though, is a nagging concern that the field is not producing work that matters. “The danger is that political science is moving in the direction of saying more and more about less and less,” said Joseph Nye, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, whose work has been particularly influential among American policy makers. “There are parts of the academy which, in the effort to be scientific, feel we should stay away from policy,” Mr. Nye said, that “it interferes with the science.”
In his view statistical techniques too often determine what kind of research political scientists do, pushing them further into narrow specializations cut off from real-world concerns. The motivation to be precise, Mr. Nye warned, has overtaken the impulse to be relevant.
In recent years he and other scholars, including Robert Putnam and Theda Skocpol, both former presidents of the American Political Science Association, have urged colleagues not to shy away from “the big questions.”
Graduate students discussing their field, said Peter Katzenstein, a political science professor at Cornell University, often speak in terms of “an interesting puzzle,” a small intellectual conundrum that tests the ingenuity of the solver, rather than the large, sloppy and unmanageable problems that occur in real life.
“This is the great divide on what we are doing,” he said, adding that political scientists did not agree on the unit of analysis (whether the focus should be on the individual or social relationships), the source of knowledge or how to measure things.
Rogers Smith, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who has been active in the “Perestroika” movement, said that the question should determine the method. If you want to test cause and effect, “quantitative methods are the preferred way to go,” he said, but they can’t tell “how political phenomena should be understood and interpreted” — whether a protest, for instance, is the result of a genuine social movement or an interest group, whether it is religious or secular.
Arthur Lupia, a professor in the University of Michigan’s political science department, said he was using the scientific method to understand what processes and institutions were necessary for a democratic society to function.
Mr. Lupia is the lead investigator on one of the projects financed by the National Science Foundation that Senator Coburn has attacked: the American National Election Studies. Senator Coburn has maintained that commentators on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news media outlets “provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions.” He has argued that the $91.3 million that the foundation spent on social science projects over the last 10 years should have gone to biology, chemistry or pharmaceutical science.
Mr. Lupia, whose background is in applied mathematics and economics, concedes that political science is not quite like the natural sciences. First, the subjects under study “can argue back.” But he maintains that it uses the same rigorous mechanisms to evaluate observations as any other science.
The elections project, which has been financed by the foundation in various forms for more than three decades and has involved 700 scientists, tracks why citizens vote and how they respond to elections. The database is used by thousands of scholars, and has been widely praised as illuminating the question of why democracy works.
No date has been set for a vote on Senator Coburn’s proposal, which was introduced on Oct. 7. Yet even as he is trying to restrict National Science Foundation financing of social science, the Defense Department has been recruiting scholars in the same fields to work on security issues like terrorism, Iraq and China’s military. The nation must embrace “eggheads and ideas,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said, to meet potential national threats.
Some Defense Department grants were awarded by the Pentagon through a new program titled Minerva; others were distributed through the National Science Foundation because it has experience in grant making and is apolitical.
As for those who criticize quantitative analysis as too narrow, Mr. Lupia said that the big questions were precisely what interested him. His work has been used by the World Bank and government officials in India, for example, to figure out which villages had sufficient institutions and practices to ensure that money earmarked to build a water system would not end up in someone’s pocket. Political science can also help determine what institutions and arrangements are needed to help a dictatorship make the transition to a democracy, he added.
After the fall of Communism, “when Eastern European governments were writing their constitutions, I can guarantee you they weren’t calling George Stephanopoulos,” Mr. Lupia said.
“I try to identify problems and then identify solutions to them,” he said, “to find the type of scientific method” that can answer the question.
Buchanan wrote on political science
From Prof Randolph M. Siverson.
Sir, Contrary to the letter of October 19, James Buchanan was not a political scientist. He received his PhD in economics at the University of Chicago in 1948. He did, however, write on topics of great interest to political scientists, most notably (with Gordon Tullock) The Calculus of Consent.
Randolph M. Siverson,
Research Professor,
Department of Political Science,
University of California, Davis, US
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Funding political science
Should the National Science Foundation stop funding research in political science? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) thinks so, and the American Political Science Association is predictably upset. I can't say that I think Coburn is right, but I'm finding it hard to get too exercised about it. I say this in part because I think a lot of NSF-funded research has contributed to the "cult of irrelevance" that infects a lot of political science, and because the definition of "science" that has guided the grant-making process is excessively narrow. But I also worry that trying to use federal dollars to encourage more policy-relevant research would end up politicizing academic life in some unfortunate ways.
With respect to the first issue, NSF support has undoubtedly facilitated a lot of useful data collection, especially in the field of American politics, and that the availability of this data has contributed to our knowledge of voting behavior, electoral processes, and other aspects of democratic politics. (See Paul Krugman's blog post for more on this). What's less clear is whether that additional "scientific" knowledge is actually helping real democracies perform better, or helping policymakers devise solutions to real policy problems. And in the field of international relations, I suspect that most of the NSF-funded research has been by-academics-and-for-academics, and hasn't had a discernible impact on important real-world problems.
But I haven't done a comprehensive survey of NSF funding in this field, and it's entirely possible that I missed something important. (The work of Elinor Ostrom, who just received the Nobel Prize, might be a case in point). Here's a suggestion: why doesn't the NSF put a link up on its website, listing all the grants that it has made to political science since 1995 and then listing all the research products that these projects produced, along with hyperlinks to the books or articles? That way, we could easily examine the results and debate if they were useful or not. Or if NSF doesn't want to do that, the APSA could provide this information itself. If the field has a lot of accomplishments to be proud of, surely it won't take long to compile a compelling list. And by the way, it would be interesting to compare the results of NSF-funded projects with research that was either unfunded (i.e., done without outside grants), or funded from other sources.
But please don't just give me a citation count, because all shows is that some academic has managed to get cited by his or her fellow scholars. In other words, incest. Demonstrating real-world value will require some serious process-tracing outside the ivory tower, to show how new knowledge and ideas are actually shaping policy in positive ways.
My other concern has to do with the relationship between government funding and policy-relevance. Much as I would like more academic research to address real-world problems, I worry that it would inevitably become more politicized once the government gets involved. It is hard to imagine how a serious study of counterinsurgency, the global financial crisis, human rights, or counterterrorism policy would not have important implications for current policy debates, and some of that research would be explicitly critical of key government policies. Senator Coburn is eager to cut off political science because he thinks it is wasteful, but other politicians are bound to try to fund projects that conform to their own political prejudices. Or they will go after government-funded research that they think is "unpatriotic," just as politicians once attacked a major RAND study on the dynamics of surrender by suggesting it was encouraging "defeatism." Academics are human, and some of them are bound to start tailoring their topics and their conclusions to fit the perceived preferences of funders. That's ok in the think tank world, but universities really ought to aim for a higher standard. The other danger is that academics will be encouraged to make their research as bland as possible, so that it doesn’t offend anyone. We hardly need more of that.
As I've written elsewhere, political science ought to place more value on its ability to contribute to solving real-world policy problems, but that will require a shift in the norms and standards that the field sets for itself. Ironically, that rethinking might happen faster if the NSF gravy train were smaller, or if academics started to worry that ideas like Coburn's might catch on.
totalaldo/flickr
Stephen M. Walt | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under:
* Academia | international relations | Education | International Relations | Science & Technology
)
Advertisement
Click Here!
I think Coburn is just pissed
by drlake777 on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 2:03pm
I think Coburn is just pissed because some of the research that has been done undoubtedly indicates how much of a putz he is. Why else would he get excited about roughly $9 million per year in funding?
That said, if you want to actually study the impact of NSF funded Political Science research and get anything meaningful out of it, you need appropriate controls. To whit, the study needs to include a similar analysis of all of the other grants as well, across all fields. After all, I bet we could cherry pick the biology, medicine, or chemistry grant recipients list and come up with a set of seemingly useless research there as well.
* Login or register to post comments
Data collection deserves funding, and data analysis does not.
by mawal1975 on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 4:36pm
Data is of value to everybody, and data collection is generally expensive to do. Data analysis, on the other hand, delivers very little value beyond presentation of the data itself (with rare and unforeseeable exceptions), and data analysis is NOT expensive. I can do data analysis myself in my spare time at no cost to anyone, and so can you, once we have the data. Thus, we should support state funding for worthy data collection projects, and oppose funding for all other kinds of political 'science' productions. In deciding what's a "worthy" data collection project, the policy-relevance of the project should be disregarded. The NSF doesn't ask whether there'll be practical applications when they fund sub-particle physics experiments, and the same should go for collecting hard data about society.
Dipartment Of Humanities and Social Science
Political Science
In its broadest sense, politics is 'the constrained use of social power' (E. Goodin & H. D. Klingerman eds., A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford University Press, 1996). How is power enforced, sustained and legitimized? How do people contest, and sometimes successfully challenge, power-holders? These are the fundamental questions that Political Science addresses. Political scientists are therefore, primarily concerned with explaining those events and interactions in which power or authority is at stake. Politics is thus linked to the concepts of conflict and cooperation and more importantly to the distribution of resources - ‘who gets what, when and how’ (H. Lasswell, 1936).
The curriculum for Political Science at LUMS is designed to help students to better comprehend the political processes that inform the complex and rapidly changing world they live in. It equips them with the analytical tools and practical knowledge required so as to understand the interplay between political ideologies, institutions and actors that shape politics, at the domestic as well as international level. Courses in Political Science adopt a variety of approaches to the study of politics: empirical and theoretical; historical, sociological, and philosophical; comparative and international. Introducing these approaches allow students to examine political life in a variety of contexts from the local, grassroots level to the international state system and the increasingly important globalized space. Typically, a student will confront issues such as states' formation and functions, political regimes, policy-making process, agents of political socialization, political theories and ideologies, political representation, civil society and social movements.
Political Science Major at LUMS
Political Science is traditionally divided into 4 or 5 major sub-fields (depending on universities): Political Theory, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Public Policy (Policy Analysis or Government), and Political Sociology (which is sometimes part of the Sociology department as well). The curriculum in Political Science offers an opportunity to specialize in each of these sub-fields.
Courses are presently offered in the following areas:
1. Political Theory
2. Comparative Politics (Comparative Politics, Political Economy, Area Studies)
3. International Relations
4. Political Economy & Public Policy
5. Political Sociology
However, at LUMS, we acknowledge that there are several areas of research that cut across the purview of the traditional sub-fields. This is why our Political Science curriculum also offers to the students the possibility to engage with the rest of the social science curriculum so that they can meaningfully benefit from a broad-based, inter-disciplinary education. They are afforded the opportunity to infuse a healthy dose of Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, or History into their political studies. In particular we pay special attention to Area studies and Political Economy.
Political Science as a discipline developed out of the need to understand the trajectory of social and political development in Western Europe. Hence, it tends to weigh heavily on analysis that emerges out of this particular historical context. While socio-political realities have undoubtedly some universal features, the configurations of power, authority, justice and natural rights have their own trajectories in other parts of the world. One of the strengths of Political Science at LUMS is the recognition that an understanding of politics in post-colonial societies requires a distinct perspective. We, therefore pay special importance to offering students a complementary analysis to Western political science. For example, we have developed specialized courses on the theories of post-colonial politics and nationalism and on the interaction of Islam and politics. This also reflects the interests of the faculty and their areas of research including the nature of relations between the state and society in developing countries; the nexus between religion and the state on both philosophical and empirical grounds; the politics of transition to and the consolidation of democracy; and issues of domestic and foreign policy in South Asia and the Middle East.
FAQs
What Skills will Studying Political Science Provide a Student?
The concentration in Political Science gives students a substantive grounding in the subject both at the theoretical and methodological level.
Those students studying Political Science at LUMS should graduate with the ability to appreciate and respect the political underpinnings of different societies in the world. They should be able to carefully analyze and observe how people address issues such as the political organization of society, the management of conflicts, the distribution of power and authority and the ways to solve collective action problems.
The concentration in Political Science aims at developing the thinking, reading, writing and oral expression skills needed for a critical understanding of politics. Students are strongly encouraged to re-evaluate commonly accepted ideas and consider alternative explanations. Our pedagogical approach lays special emphasis on helping them to develop rigorous oral and written argumentation, and to support their own conclusions with carefully deployed evidence.
The fundamental components of our methodological training are: (i) reading articles and books, and being able to critically comment them, (ii) constructing reasoned arguments and being able to express them forcefully both orally and in writing. Therefore serious attention is paid to the development of effective writing in assignments such as response papers, review essays, reading summaries and research papers. Oral presentations are also an important part of the students’ methodological training.
At a more general level, we hope that students taking the Political Science major will develop the confidence to participate in their communities as responsible, civic-minded and politically active individuals.
What Career Can I Pursue?
There are several career options open to students who graduate with a concentration in Political Science. The analytical and critical thinking skills, multicultural sensitivity and international outlook gained from an education in Political Science are all traits that are widely sought after by employers in many fields.
Careers that build directly on Political Science include employment in academia (research and teaching), the Civil or Foreign Service sector and international organizations (such as the World Bank and United Nations) as well as NGOs. Other fields open to political scientists include consultancy work and jobs in think tanks and public policy institutes. Finally, the specific skills developed in the Political Science program can be adapted gainfully to other career paths, such as law, publishing, journalism and electronic media.
Where Are Our Graduates Now?
Students that concentrated in Political Science at LUMS have gone on to pursue careers in academia, law, media, in international organizations such the World bank and the Asian Development Bank, and in NGOs. Some have also chosen to pursue careers in the banking sector and multinational companies.
In addition, a substantial number have chosen to pursue higher degrees at some of the best foreign universities including Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States and SOAS, University of Warwick and University of Sussex in England.
Courses
A student doing a Major in Political Science will be required to complete 13 courses in the discipline. Students can achieve this objective by taking a combination of compulsory and elective courses. They must take one prerequisite (4 credits), two compulsory courses (8 credits), and ten elective courses (40 credits), for a total of 52 credits.
The 52 Credits will be spread out as follows:
Prerequisite Course (4 credits)
*
POL 100: Introduction to Political Science
(Students wanting to major in Political Science must take this course in the beginning of an academic year).
Compulsory Courses (8 credits – two courses)
All students opting for a major in Political Science will take the following two courses, which will not be double-counted:
* POL 111: Introduction to Western Political Thought
* POL 320: Comparative Politics
Elective Courses (40 credits – 10 courses)
In addition to the compulsory courses, students wanting to major in Political Science will need to take 10 courses from the list of electives from any of the following sub-fields of the discipline. They are required to take at least 3 courses at 300 or 400 levels.
* Political Theory
* Comparative Politics
* International Relations
* Political Economy & Public Policy
* Political Sociology & Political Anthropology
All courses will be four-credits except POL 222 Community Based Learning (2 credits). Please note that this is not an exhaustive list. We will keep on adding courses as new faculty members join or existing faculty wishes to develop new courses. Students may wish to opt for Senior Project, which will be for one course or 4 credits.
1. Political Theory
*
POL 111 Introduction to Western Political Thought
* POL 112 Introduction to Political Philosophy
* POL 310 Democratic Theory
* POL 311 Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy
* POL 312 Introduction to Islamic Political Philosophy
* POL 313 Contemporary Sociological Theories
2. Comparative Politics
*
POL 420 Media & Politics
*
POL 320 Comparative Politics
*
POL 321 Comparative Constitutional Law & Politics
*
POL 421 Theories of Democratic Transition
*
POL 422 Domestic Politics & Foreign Policy
*
POL 423 Civil Society & Social Movements
*
POL 322 Comparative Contentious Politics
*
POL 220 American Government & Politics
*
POL 221 Politics of South Asia
*
POL 323 Politics of India
*
POL 324 Politics of the Middle East
*
POL 325 Politics of Pakistan
*
POL 425 Civil Military Relations
*
POL 222 Community Based Learning
*
POL 223 Colonial States in Theory & History
*
POL 327 History of Decolonization
*
POL 224 The Modern Middle East
*
POL 427 War & Peace: Studies in Sectarian, Communal & Ethnic Conflicts
3. International Relations
* POL 130 Introduction to International Politics
* POL 131 Introduction to International Relations
* POL 230 Theories of International Relations
* POL 231 The Politics of International Terrorism
* POL 330 International Politics of South Asia
* POL 331 Pakistan’s Foreign Relations
* POL 430 Religion & World Politics
* POL 431 Global Politics of the Environment
* POL 432 Foreign Policy of Pakistan
* POL 232 Africa in the World System
* POL 332 Islam & the West
* POL 233 Understanding 9/11: How Some Events Structure Global Histories
4. Political Economy & Public Policy
* POL 340 IPE: States & Markets
* POL 240 Political Economy of Development & Underdevelopment
* POL 241 Foreign Aid, Governance & Development in Pakistan
5. Political Sociology & Political Anthropology
* POL 350 Political Sociology
* POL 450 Anthropology of the State
* POL 451 Peasant Societies & Their Movements
Political Science Faculty
*
Ejaz Akram
*
Magid Shihade
*
Marie Lall
*
Mohammed Waseem
*
Mohammed Zahid
*
Parveen Akhtar
*
Rasul Bakhsh Rais
*
Taimur Rahman