Research consultancy
“COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DIFFERS FROM BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IN THAT, THE FOCUS IS ON THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND THE DYNAMICS OF GOVERNMENTAL AND BUREAUCRATIC PROCESSES WHICH IMPACT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE”.
CRITICALLY ANALYZE THIS STATEMENT IN RELATION TO OTHER DISCIPLINES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE STUDY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND CLEARLY BRING OUT THE CHALLENGES COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IS FACED WITH.
Comparative Public Administration (CPA) is a learning and discovery method that uses benchmark to advance administrative knowledge in the government and societies across the world. The comparative study of public administrative looks at structures, functions and behaviors across organizational and cultural boundaries and it helps to improve the reliability and applicability of public administration knowledge. As Bannister (2007) points out, “human will to compare one’s results with that of others and it is an integral part of our psychological constitution”. Comparative studies have existed for centuries since Aristotle’s Politics, and have produced many important and interdisciplinary generalizations (Lynn, 1998).
This paper draws the line between public administration and business administration and clearly relates to other disciplines including economic, social science among others. In this essay, Public administration is examined in relationship with political science, history, economics, sociology, Psychology among other disciplines viz-a-vis business administration.
Several studies show that the major difference between business administration and public administration lies in the organizations and purposes being administered (Rainey, 2001; Thornhill, 2006; Simon, 1998). Comparative Public administration supposes administering services for the public whereas business administration involves the administering of a business or an entity that, by definition, has been created with the goal of making a profit for its owners or investors or both. Business administration, therefore, focuses on those decisions that will contribute to the realization of this goal (profit) and yet public administration involves offering a public good or service to entire population.
The finances of public administration are controlled by the legislature which allocates finances to the government sectors. In other words, legislature authorizes the income and expenditure of the executive branch. Private administration, on the other hand, business administration is not subject to the principle of external financial control (Simon, (1998). An example can be drawn from the parliamentary system in Uganda where the parliament appropriates the finances to different ministries and departments, and after the approval, it is passed and read by the Minister of finance planning and economic development on behalf of the president. This therefore shows that there is a lot of bureaucracy which is not the case with business administration.
Comparative public administration emerged out of post-World War II efforts to find better global development strategies. Its early practitioners worked to define the field, develop general theory, set a research agenda, and generalize “lessons learned” (Jreisat, 2005; Riggs, 1954). Comparative Public administration is understood to be comprehensive interdisciplinary approach that draws on knowledge sources across the social sciences. Its increasing interdisciplinary nature implies that it draws upon other social sciences and applies in its study the knowledge, insights, techniques and tools developed by them to address societal needs.
Unlike business administration, Public Administration is service oriented and profit making is not its goal. For instance, a businessman will never undertake a venture which is not likely to yield any profit, even if it is essential for the public welfare. In addition, profit serves as a simple criterion to judge the efficient or inefficient performance of a business firm (Box, 2015). However, the abstract value of ‘social good’ promoted by public organizations cannot be measured in terms of monetary gain or loss. When the government of Uganda constructs Mukono-Katosi road, it does not expect to get direct profit from it which is contrary to the business administration.
On the basis of the nature of the administrative settings, public administration is governmental administration concerned with operating programs or providing services on a collective basis rather than directly to individuals, supported in the great majority of cases by tax revenues, not direct payments for services rendered; whereas private administration relates to administration of private business organizations whose products or services are furnished to individuals based on their own needs or wants in exchange for a direct benefit or reward (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014). Therefore, public good delivered by the state go through bureaucratic procedures and steps. For example, the construction of the road or the railway must go through government budgeting process. Another example can be drawn from Mobile Telephone Network (MTN) in Uganda, it offers services with an intention of generating profits and this is business, however, comparative business administration is to regulate the activities of MTN so that it does not exploit the people of Uganda.
Unlike business administration, Comparative Public Administration looks at the government services that operate within a legal framework. The activities of public administrators are fixed by a set of constitutional practices, laws, rules and regulations. Government officials must always act within their legal powers in order to offer or manage public goods. They cannot act contrary to, or in excess of legal power. If they do so, their actions can be declared invalid or challenged in the courts of law on the grounds of law. This is the reason why everything done by public officials must be supported by reasonably clear statutory authority (Farazmand, 2012). The Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPDA) in Uganda does not allow procurement of government goods without going through steps however low the prices might be, however, business administration aims at making profit and will not go through the PPDA bureaucracies.
There is a lot of bureaucracy and this involve control of institutions and is increasingly ruling society, politics, and government. It has become progressively “omnipresent” and “omnipotent” in public administration today in r elation to the management of government affairs, and increasingly in the formulation of the public policies (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014). Max Weber is unanimously regarded as the most important exponent of Bureaucracy. But turning the study of comparative public administration on time machine further back, the functioning of this machinery of government has been an interesting subject matter of discussion since the time of registered history. Many insightful observations about the working of public organization and government can be traced back to a long historical background in Europe and Asia and this is why public administration is interdisciplinary (Khan, 2013). This also makes bureaucracy both an ancient governmental activity and a fairly new academic discipline.
Public administration much defer from business administration because in comparative public administration, bureaucracy is a phenomenon affecting all types of societies, be that either capitalist or socialist, industrial or rural, developed or underdeveloped, as well as all both the public and the private sectors. As a major sub-field of public choice, it is the administrative structure and set of regulations in place to control activities, usually in large organizations and government (Khan & Islam, 2014). In terms of its purpose rather than structure, bureaucracy signifies a form of administrative organization that is expected to maximize efficiency (Kim, 2017). Bureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the way in which the administrative execution of legal rules is socially organized. It is represented by standardized procedure that instructs the execution of the processes provided within the body, formal division of powers, hierarchy, and relationships.
Public accountability is the hall-mark of comparative public administration in a democracy. The Public administrator carries on his work in a “glass bowl”. His actions are open to public review and scrutiny at all times. In the words of Mulgan (2000), “Government administration differs from all other administrative work by virtue of its public nature, the way in which it is subject to public scrutiny and outcry. In democratic settings, Public administration is held accountable for its activities through legislative oversight and judicial review (Armstrong, 2005). This shows that in the sphere of Public administration the initiative for securing accountability lies with those to whom it is due. Business administration (private) has no such obligation, administrators in the private sector are not accountable to the public for what they do and what they fail to do apart from operating within the confines of the law governing the country or the state.
Public administration is a dynamic discipline which is somewhat similar to business administration. Comparative public administration involves processes, organizations, groups, society, as well as individuals associated with implementing laws and other rules administered by judiciary, legislatures, and executives (Pandey, 2017). Public administration has been gradually changed with time and made accordingly to the necessities of organizations, societies, as well as individuals. It also varies with the context of the country (Kim, 2017). For example, public administration in Uganda may be different from USA, however, the similarity is that they both have to address the needs of their respective countries and this is what qualifies comparative public administration to be interdisciplinary.
Comparative public administration shows that a public administrator is required by law to maintain a high degree of consistency in his dealings with the public. He/she needs to adhere to the principle of “equity of treatment” in serving the people which is not the case with business administration which has elements of price discrimination. In the public administration, a public servant is under legal obligation not to show any discrimination against any person. If he/she shows any favor to anybody, all others are entitled to similar treatment (Matei, Leoveanu, 2014). In other words, the public official is denied discretion in the interests of fairness and equality. On the other hand, the business administrator is not legally obliged to treat the small and big customers alike. Private business concerns can show preference to large clients. Thus, business administrators do not adhere to the principle of equity of treatment in their dealings with their customers.
In looking at other discipline like political science, it is all about the study of state and systems of government and therefore it is concerned with influence. Political science as a discipline ensures authoritative allocation of values to the various sections in society. Public administration is very closely, if not indistinguishable, connected with political science. Whereas political science is concerned with government, public administration is concerned with government actions and what different government or public institutions and individuals do (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013). The interface between public administration and political science becomes clear and vivid because several studies concur that both deal with the political system but from different positions. Political science activates and energizes the state, it deals with the input part, while Public administration deals with output (Rosenbaum, 2014; Matei, Leoveanu, 2014; Khan, 2013). Being the study of state and government, political science provides the fundamental framework within which public administration functions.
Nevertheless, the tension between politics and administration continues to play out in practice, especially as public servants frequently perceive the politicization of public administration to be a threat to their professional status, while politicians often consider it to be an essential component of the multiple dimensions of administrative activity within their areas of responsibility (Colino, & del Pino, 2015). The tension is particularly pronounced in the appointment of senior public servants, with the politicization of public administration being reflected in how far up the administrative hierarchy merit gives way to the political affiliation as a core basis of appointment and promotion (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009)
According to the political scientist James Pfiffner, the politics and comparative public administration are so closely knit together that it becomes difficult to draw the line where one ends and the other begins (Pfiffner, 1997). Politics addresses power which is the latest definition of the term. According to Raymond Aron, politics is the study of authority relations between the individual and groups and the hierarchy power which establishes itself within all numerous and complex communities (Van der Waldt, 2014). As per this definition, since, power is kind of omnipresent, it is safe to assume that it has an important say in the matters of public administration as well.
Professional fields in the public sector often share the broad directive of improving the quality of life for residents of a given community as mandated by the public administration services. In this sense, public administration and political science are complementary subjects. Public administrators make decisions that lead to success in the societies they govern. Political scientists work alongside those administrators to ensure that their understanding of the political landscape is consistent with reality (Wolf, 2000). This holds true at all levels of government, as the knowledge derived from political science informs domestic and interstate policy decisions that are implemented by public administrators.
Unlike public administration, other disciplines like history are concerned with the study of social progress of mankind and everything mankind has thought, done and achieved. History as a discipline involve the study of the past events, movements, their causes and interrelations. However, History supplies valuable materials for the study of comparative public administration (Mulgan, 2000). Its subject-matter includes economic and social developments, religion, intellectual and artistic movements as well as the growth and decline of States, their organizations, functions, achievements and failures.
History and public administration informs one another and show the symbiotic relationship of the country’s past and what it wants to achieve for its people. For example, Uganda’s development challenges in the past were related to public services and partly contributed to its failure to realize its development goals immediately after few years after gaining independence and therefore, to come back on the rail of development, it was necessary to restructure public administration systems. Therefore, history as a discipline is the laboratory of human experiences. All administrative experiences of history are the subject-matter of experiments that are addressed through public administration and this therefore makes public administration an interdisciplinary in nature and design (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014). This implies that the study of public administrative system of a country would not be complete without a proper glimpse of its historical background.
In comparison with public administration and economics, economics is concerned with aspects of human behavior which arises from the scarcity of means to achieve a given end and putting into a country’s economic resources (Otenyo & Lind, 2006). For example, a country like Uganda which has just recently discovered oil as a resource, the economics come into play because countries that have got resources have ended up having such economic resources as a curse. Adam Smith definition of economics as the art of managing the resources of the people and of the government clearly brings out the close relationship between Public administration and economics (Asgarov et al., 2014).
Similarly, a variety of areas covered in public administration are economic based. For instance, the common areas of study include such matters as public finance, budgeting, economic planning, management of public enterprises and the like. The formulation and implementation of government’s development plans and policies if they are to be evaluated in terms of their economic consequences must be in concert with public administration (Ponkin, 2013). Thus, economic planning brings public administration and economics closer. Therefore, there is so much in common between Public administration and economics and this explains why a country like Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania read their national budgets.
Disciplines like Sociology which involves the study of human social relationships in totality have a closer relationship to public administration as a discipline. Sociology synthesizes political, economic, familial, religious, and other relationships in order to arrive at a complete understanding of man’s social life (Otenyo & Lind, 2006). Public administration deals with management of man’s administrative affairs in society and is concerned with the fulfilment of the communal needs such as security of life, health, education among others. Ovcharenkon& Larkina, (2011) rightly point out the intimate relationship between Public administration and sociology exists in a social setting and the pattern of administration determined by society; but through sensitive administrative leadership.
Studies by sociologists assert that Sociology has great influence on Public administration like bureaucracy (Wolf, 2000). Besides bureaucracy, such concepts and terms as authority, organization, association, alienation and social change are often studied in both the disciplines. For example, if the government of Uganda wanted to construct a new road, sociologist will be hired to assess the sociological effect of the road to the community and this is what exactly happens to all public roads constructed by the government of Uganda.
In public administration, the administrators form a distinct group known as bureaucrats which, work in the interest of the public and frequently interact with social environment. For example, if the organization is big enough there will be small groups and even sub-groups within it. These small groups and sub-groups have their own loyalties, sympathies, antipathies; ethics, outlook which would influence the administrative apparatus (Khan, 2013). Therefore, Sociology offers to Public Administration information about groups, their behavior, and the way they affect social life. It is, therefore, not surprising that writers regarded as eminent in Public Administration primarily belong to Sociology (Farazmand, 2012). Some of the recent works in Sociology on status, class, power, occupation, family, etc., provide useful information and a theoretical base for the Sociology of Public Administration.
There are several challenges comparative public administration is faced with. For example, developing countries are still suffering from numerous and diverse governance-related inefficiencies and complexities, both structural and non-structural despite of the continuing efforts to enhance the quality of governance in the countries. The challenge of comparative public administration in these countries are, how do they ensure basic needs of the people with a continually meaningful participation of people among others and therefore, the challenges of comparative public administration are diverse and include among others the following.
There is a fundamental challenge of lack of observation of good governance principles in a number of countries more so in developing countries (Thornhill, 2006). Good government depends on the good performance of its public servants because it is the government and its state machinery that are the best defense of ordinary citizens against organized business, labour, and the powerful vested interests which seek special privileges in laws, or simply to do what they want. For instance, local governments in Uganda have to function and scrutinized by the people, however, lack of civic education hinders people from participating in such processes.
Comparative public administration faces a challenge of failure by states to put into consideration the historical inadequacies into their planning processes. During Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World bank, in the public service reforms, they neglected taking into account the historical perspectives and cultural dimensions (Argyriades, 2001). Sensitivity to culture and history of a nation is crucial when designing, imposing, and implementing public service reforms. Dictating reforms from outside without considering the cultural and historical factors would not achieve expected results as has been demonstrated with respect to Comparative Public administration.
In developing countries, the major challenge is development and modernization. The public institutions have the enormous developmental tasks in their hands; combined with rapid economic development due to the growth in the private sector and the economically wealthy young population, the demand for delivery of services is increasing. In many parts of the developing countries, the rural areas have not kept up with the rapidly growing urban areas, whether in Brazil or in Uganda or Rwanda, they look upon Government, public administration and public servants as their only hope (Farazmand, 2012).
Corruption is one of the major obstacles in the way of public administration in the modern world more especially in developing countries and they are always ranked as the most corrupt countries and the corruption tendencies are evident in public institutions like police, judiciary and other key services on which a country’s development is hinged. According to Transparency International Report (TIR, 2017), “Corruption acts to diminish the ability of law enforcement to accomplish its mission. The prevalence of corruption in developing countries has not only diminished the ability of the law enforcement but also adversely affected the judiciary, public administration and is impeding the fair functioning of the countries.
Corruption is very common in every office as like culture; it is due to lack of uniform system of recruitment system, qualification, pay and classification, opportunity for advancement, satisfactory office environment, satisfactory retirement provisions (Baumann, 2017). Another culture is the bribery for recruitment of a desirable post that is why administrator takes bribery from public for recovery of that money.
There is a lot of inefficiency of bureaucracy in public administration and this has weakened the institutions that drive development. The inseparable and inevitable part of an organized society is Bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy of developing countries and other fragile countries is not efficient in management and administration. In countries like Uganda, Guinea Bissau, Burundi among others, bureaucracy is very poor especially in capacity building and policy implementation. It is not accountable and transparent to the people (Tavits, 2007). The system of bureaucracy is running with an outdated legal structure.
Nepotism and its related tendencies is one of the challenges faced by comparative public administration more so in delivering public good or services. Nepotism means special favor to some special people. It is another curse of politics and administration. The rulers give privilege and unfair advantage to their family members, kith’s and kens on public resources, that is why mass people are deprived from these opportunities (van der Waldt, 2014). Better service delivery cannot thrive when nepotism is at work.
Politicization of public services is another challenge faced by comparative public administration. Politicization is very common in every institution in many countries more especially where there is decentralization system of governance. Politicization in government institutions including the police not only increases inefficiency and corruption but also increases human rights violation, especially on the opposition political parties by filing false cases. The politicization of the civil service is largely responsible for the lack of good enough governance (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014).
Improper and non-observance of the rule of law and this comes as a result of bad leadership and failure to observe the principles of good governance. There are always enough laws but it is very rare to implement them according to just systems in developing countries. It is always used for curbing opposition parties (Rosenbaum, 2014). As a result, justices suffer and denied to the common people although that is an important part of good governance.
Improper use of resources and no wonder developing countries have a lot of resources like oil, gold and other natural resources, but they have turned out to be curses rather than blessings. There is a common tendency of administrator to neglect the monetary system and other properties in a number of countries. The fund flow is not timely and smooth to the local government. That is why; funds are not utilized properly and very often diverted to other purposes (Knutsen, Kotsadam, Olsen & Wig, 2017). So, the general people cannot get benefit from it and this becomes a serious challenge to public administration.
Poor decision making and poor planning on the side of the public administrators is another challenge faced by comparative public administration. In every institution, there is a lack of proper planning and decision-making process. That is why some development works cannot be implement properly and people suffer for water, electricity, poor roads among others. But no effective measures are taken by the public administrators (Rhodes, 2016). This implies that public administration will be in jeopardy and hence people end up failing to access basic public services.
Public administration is faced with a challenge of shortage of trained personnel to work in public institutions more especially in the local governments. For example, many districts in Uganda have no qualified local government administrators and managers. There is a shortage of trained personnel, which is the most obvious and widely noted difficulty in many decentralized governments (Knutsen et al., 2017). The shortage of trained personnel generally affects all levels of administration, but in particularly acute with regard to support administration that is to say middle- and lower-level personnel and local administrators.
Rapid staff turnover is another complex challenge faced by public administration more especially in the developing economies. Sometimes it is observed that a skilled administrator is shifted around from one position to another due lack of skilled person in another department. Some of it is voluntary and due to the lack of uniform systems of pay, classification, and advancement (Rhodes, 2016). others public administrators join politics and many local governments do not recruit the competent workers due to the salaries that are paid that are not attractive at all.
Limited institutional capacity in terms of resources and financial is a serious challenge to public administration in developing economies (Farazmand, 2012) It is necessary to follow some points for institutional capacity building such as separate the parliamentary secretariat form the public service and ensure its political neutrality, recruit and train parliamentary staff in relevant fields, establishing a research support unit within the parliament and failure to address these, public administration and management becomes difficult.
The public nature of development has a significant number of challenges to public administration, among which unresolved contradictions in the actions of the state, businesses and the public. Indeed, countries like Uganda are typical for the alienation of the public from the state, which is often expressed in civic apathy and deliberate distance of a large part of the population from the administrative decision-making process. This contradiction is reflected in the removal of the management process from the administrative decision-making and implementation phases (Knutsen et al., 2017). It should be noted that one of the main conditions for the resolution of the existing contradiction is the establishment of a public nature of governance based on new models of public administration and mechanisms for their implementation.
One of the challenges of public administration is faced with is failure to balance the need for public administration in a fair observance of its interests and the balance between the needs and interests with a real possibility of meeting them. The existence of various conflicting interests is typical for the object and the subject of public administration (Jreisat, 2005). These interests are realized to some extent, which subsequently leads to a clash for the opportunity to participate in the administrative decision-making and decision implementation on most important issues to the community.
The contradiction between the need for reliable and timely information, transparency and openness in public administration, as well as its possible information distortion affecting its accuracy, is one of the main derivative contradictions of public administration. In fact, this contradiction means that public authorities must communicate true and accurate information on their performance to the civil society and the business community through public administrators (van der Waldt, 2014). However, the opposite usually happens, as it is the authority’s complete monopoly that automatically increases the degree of controversy both within and between public authorities. This fact determines the need for constant communication of accurate and complete information. However, in practice this does not always happen or it is significantly delayed, resulting in the loss of important and relevant information, which is typical for all levels of public administration (Rosenbaum, 2014).
In conclusion of this essay therefore, it is important to note that comparative public administration is indeed interdisciplinary and this is because, politics affects public administration either positively or negatively, economics drives the economy, bureaucracy contributes to better public service delivery, sociology plays a key part in the planning and groups in the society among other disciplines that have been tackled in this paper. Understanding the challenges of public administration in states and societies requires both a global and a comparative perspective lenses.
From the dawn of civilization, political science, business administration, sociology, economics and public administration have developed a close relationship. The development of a more stable society during any era in the existence of any civilization could not take place without the improvement and coordination of political and administrative techniques that foster social cohesion. Public administration and political science not only study and develop such techniques, but also work toward accomplishing such cohesion. For all its studies and research, the field of public administration has been acknowledged to have an interdisciplinary approach.
REFERENCES
Argyriades, D. (2002). Governance and Public Administration in the Twenty-first Century: New Trends and New Techniques’. In International Congress of administrative sciences, Brussels.
Armstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international developments and emerging issues. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1-10.
Asgarov, S., Alakbarov, M., Aliev, Z., Babayev, N., Chiladze, G., Datskovsky, I. I., … & Kohl, O. (2014). Public Administration: Challenges and Solutions.
Bannister, F. (2007). The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 171-188.
Baumann, H. (2017). A failure of governmentality: Why Transparency International underestimated corruption in Ben Ali’s Tunisia. Third World Quarterly, 38(2), 467-482.
Box RC (2015) Making a difference: progressive values in public administration. M.E. Sharpe, Inc., New York
Colino, C., & del Pino, E. (2015). National and European patterns of public administration and governance. Routledge Handbook of European Politics, London: Routledge, 611-39.
Dominique EU, Kealeboga JM (2014) The changing global public administration and its theoretical and practical implications for Africa. J Public Admin Policy Res 6:90–101.
Farazmand, A. (2012). The future of public administration: Challenges and opportunities—A critical perspective. Administration & Society, 44(4), 487-517.
Jreisat, J. E. (2005). Comparative public administration is back in, prudently. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 231-242.
Khan MM (2013) Public administration in the governance framework: Bangladesh public administration at forty. J Asiat Soc Bangladesh 58:277–288
Khan MM, Islam MS (2014) Democracy and good governance in Bangladesh: are they compatible? Millenn Asia 5:23–40.
Kim PS (2017) The development of modern public administration in East Asia. Int Rev Adm Sci 83:225–240.
Knutsen, C. H., Kotsadam, A., Olsen, E. H., & Wig, T. (2017). Mining and local corruption in Africa. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 320-334.
Lynn Jr, L. E. (1998). The new public management: How to transform a theme into a legacy. Public Administration Review, 231-237.
Matei A, Leoveanu AC (2014) Logic and public administration: towards a logic of administrative action. GRIN Verlag, Munich
Milakovich ME, Gordon GJ (2009) Public Administration in America, 10th edn. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston
Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Public administration in America. Cengage Learning.
Mulgan, R. (2000). Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(1), 87-97.
Otenyo, E. E., & Lind, N. S. (2006). Part I: Comparative Public Administration: Growth, Method, and Ecology. In Comparative Public Administration (pp. 1-7). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ovcharenko, G. V., & Larkina, N. G. (2011). Innovative management in modern organizations: a tutorial. Rostov n/d: SAKGS.
Pandey SK (2017) Theory and method in public administration. Rev Public Pers Admin 37:131–138.
Pfiffner, J. P. (1997). The national performance review in perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 20(1), 41-70.
Ponkin, I. V. (2013). Concept, characteristics and nature of public administration and education. Right, (11).
Rainey, H. G. (2001). A reflection on Herbert Simon: A satisficing search for significance. Administration & Society, 33(5), 491-507.
Rhodes, R. A. (2016). Recovering the craft of public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 638-647.
Riggs, F. W. (1954). Notes on literature available for the study of comparative public administration. American Political Science Review, 48(2), 515-537.
Rosenbaum A (2014) Putting first things first: critical issues for public administration education. Teach Public Admin 32:80–94.
Simon, H. A. (1998). Why public administration?. Public administration review, 58(1), II-II.
Tavits, M. (2007). Clarity of responsibility and corruption. American journal of political science, 51(1), 218-229.
Thornhill C (2006) The domain of public administration. J Public Admin 41:793–806
Transparency International Report (2017). Problems and challenges of public administration in developing countries: pathway to sustainable development. International Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 2(1), 008-015.
Uwizeyimana, D. E., & Maphunye, K. J. (2014). The changing global Public Administration and its theoretical and practical implications for Africa. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 6(4), 90-101.
van der Waldt G (2014) Public administration teaching and interdisciplinarity. Teach Public Admin 32:169–193.
Wolf A (2000) Trends in public administration – a practitioner’ s view. Int Rev Adm Sci 66:689–696
