ABSTRACT
It has been recognized for some time that the discipline of public administration is plagued by a weak or absent theoretical core. This has led some to conclude, along with Robert Parker,1 that “there is really no such subject as ‘public administration.’ No science or art can be identified by this title, least of all any single skill or coherent intellectual discipline.” Others, including Frederick C. Mosher,2 have considered it a “resource,” that public administration “is more an area of interest than a discipline,” since this enables the field to draw upon a variety of disciplines. Still others, such as Herbert Kaufman3 and James Q. Wilson,4 have argued that public administration faces a serious and seemingly irresolvable problem in continually seeking to maximize the attainment of mutually incompatible values. The contention of this essay is that the central problem of contemporary public administrative theory is that it is derived from three disparate approaches to the basic question of what public administration is. Each of these approaches has a respected intellectual tradition, emphasizes different values, promotes different types of organizational structure, and views individuals in markedly distinct terms. These approaches are conveniently labeled “managerial,” “political,” and “legal.” They have influenced one another over the years, and at some points they overlap. Yet, their primary influence on public administration has been to pull it in three separate directions. Furthermore, these directions tend to follow the pattern of the separation of powers established by the Constitution. Consequently, it is unlikely that the three approaches can be synthesized without violating values deeply ingrained in the United States political culture.5
