Introduction

Public administration is a part of the wider field of administration.

Public Administration has gained immense importance since the
emergence of administrative state. Its functions both in the capitalist
and the socialist states have become manifold. It is an instrument not
only for protecting and restraining but also fo

“Administration,” as E N Gladden says “is a long and slightly

pompous word, but it has a humble meaning”. The word administer
derived from the latin words ad and ministiare, means to serve. In
simple language, it means the ‘management of affairs’ or ‘looking
after the people’. It is a process of management which is practiced by
all kinds of organizations from the household to the most complex
system of the government.

Classical approach to the study of Public Administration

Since 1887 there have been different approaches to the study of public
administration when this subject as a separate academic discipline
was born. The traditional approaches concentrated on the formal,
legal and institutional aspects of organisations. The methods
employed in the study were mainly historical and descriptive. The
major concerns of the older literature on administration were the
structure of personnel and financial administration, the administrative
machinery, bureaucracy and functions of public administrators. The
new approaches which mainly appeared after World War II came as a
reaction to the older approaches.
A)Historical approach: The historical approach is essentially based
on the belief that knowledge of history is absolutely essential for
an in-depth study of any subject. For a proper understanding of
the subject the study of public administration of the past in
particular periods is necessary to link up with the present
administrative systems. For example, for a proper understanding
of the background and growth of administration in India, a
historical perspective is essential. To understand the evolution of
the administrative system in India, the characteristics of British
Indian Administration and also the pre-British period have to be
studied
B) Legal approach: Exponents this approach would like to study
public administration as part of law and concentrate on the
formal legal structure and organization of public bodies. Its
chief concern has been with power—its structure and functions.
It stresses the formal organisation of offices, official duties,
limitations of power and discretionary authority of
administrators. Its main sources are constitutions, codes of law.
office manuals of rules and regulations and judicial decisions.
Many countries of Europe like Germany. Belgium and France
have particularly applied the legal approach to the study of
public administration. In these countries there are two principal
divisions of law—constitutional and administrative. Whereas
constitutional law deals with the three main organisations of the
government, their interrelations and the distribution of power
 among them, administrative law is mainly concerned with the
structure and functions of public bodies, departments and
authorities. The legal approach is valuable for the understanding
of the legal framework within which the administrative system
has to operate, but by neglecting the informal forces operating in
the organization (the sociological and psychological variables),
it remains to a great extent an incomplete approach to the study
of public administration.
C) Institutional approach: This approach tried to establish link¬
ages between the study of public administration and the
institutions of government. It approached the study of
administration through the study of the structure and functioning
of separate institutions and organisations of the state—such as
the executive, the legislature, the departments, government
corporations, boards and commissions. Scholars of this school
defined the task of administration as non-political or technical
which lay merely in the field of policy implementation. They
were mainly advocates of the politics administration dichotomy
and their efforts were channelized towards discovering
‘principles’ of public administration. However, the majority of
scholars of this approach like L. D. White and Luther Gulick
were content merely with description of institutional structures
without any attempt at theory building. This is essentially
descriptive though attempts have been made by some thinkers to
combine normative elements with the descriptive. Some of these
 have not only described the institutions but also suggested ideas
for reform, where necessary.

Modern approach to the study of PA

a) Behavioural approach: The behavioural approach is an

improvised, systematised and more sophisticated version of the
human relations approach to organisation. In fact,
behaviouralism in administrative studies is said to have started
with the Human Relations Movement of the 1930s. D.S. Pugh
calls Elton Mayo as a behavioural scientist long before the term
became popular. Later, it was developed by Chester Bernard,
Herbert Simon, Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Chris
Argyris, E.W. Bakke, Herzberg, Rensis Likert, Warren Bennis,
George Homans, Kurt Lewin, Carl Rogers, J.L. Moreno and
others. However, the most important champion was Herbert
Simon.
Behavioural approach is also known as 'Socio-psychological
approach' and 'new human relations approach'. It aims at a scientific
study of organisational behaviour. Thus, it seeks to develop practical
propositions about human behaviour in the organisational setting by
undertaking systematic, objective and empirical studies. Behavioural
approach is concerned with the application of techniques and
conclusions of sociology, psychology, social psychology, and
anthropology to understand organisational behaviour (behaviour of
people in the organisational setting) in a scientific manner. In brief,
behavioural approach is the scientific study of human behaviour in
organisations. Herbert Simon in his popular book Administrative
Behaviour (1947) observed that, "Human beings who work in
organisations have aspirations and desires. Their behaviour is
conditioned by their psychology, motives and social environment.
The administrative science should study these 'facts' of behaviour
without getting involved in the question of 'values'. Organisation is a
group of people behaving. The behaviour of these people is subject to
influence and a student of administration should study these
behaviours wherein he will have to employ the methods of sociology
and psychology.
b) Systems approach:
One of the most significant landmarks in the evolution of
organisation theory is the development of general systems
concept for organisational analysis. The origin of general
systems is traced to the thinking of the biologist Von Bertalanffy
in the twenties. But it was only due to the quest of a number of
post world war 2 scholars for a body of concepts lending unity
to studies, undertaken in various disciplines, that the concept of
system was developed. In short, general systems theory
originate in a movement aimed at the unification of science and
scientific analysis. The term system has been defined as a
complex whole, a set of connected things or parts. According to
this approach in organisational analysis, an organisation can be
considered a social system to be studied in its totality. In other
words, a system is a collection of interrelated parts which
receives inputs, acts upon them in an organised or planned
manner and thereby produces certain outputs.
c) Structural functional approach: TJie structural functional
approach as an analytical tool in the social sciences developed
from the work of the anthropologist Malinowski and Radcliffe
Brown in the early years of the present century. The important
followers of this approach are Gabriel Almond, David Apter,
Talcotl Parsons, Robert Merton and Fred Riggs. The two
concepts basic to the approach are structure and function. All
social structures exist to perform certain functions. While
functions concern the consequences of patterns of action,
structures refer to the patterns of actions and the resultant
institutions of the systems themselves.
The structural functional framework provides an important
mechanism for the analysis of different social processes. In
structural functionalism social structure is viewed as ‘any
pattern of behaviour which has become a standard feature of a
social system.There may be ‘concrete’ structures (e.g.
government departments and bureaux) or ‘analytic’ (e.g.
structure of authority or power). All social structures perform
some ‘functions’. In structural functional terms, a ‘function’
involves ‘a pattern of interdependence between two or more
 structures, a relationship between variables. It refers to “any
consequences of a structure in so far as they affect other
structures or the total system of which they are part”

d) Marxist approach: Karl Marx, the father of scientific socialism,

never attempted a full length discourse on public administration
or bureaucracy. His interests were largely peripheral in the sense
that he dealt with public administration only as complementary
to capitalism. Yet, as a keen observer of the European Public
administrative systems of his times, Marx could not ignore the
significance of bureaucracy in the society. Unlike Weber, Marx
did not write extensively on bureaucracy. But he made more
than passing reference to bureaucracy in his critique of Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right”. In it he had clearly expressed his views on
the structure and behaviour of bureaucracy and its relationship
with State and Society. Marx’s usage of bureaucracy refers both
to the system of administration and to the men who
implemented that system. He examined it as a set of
relationships that arise in a specific socio-economic context.
Therefore Marx’s interpretation of bureaucracy must be
understood within the conflict, the crisis of capitalism and the
advent of communism. Marx had no intention to present a
systematic exposition on bureaucracy. His theory of bureaucracy
should be read in his overall schematic framework of social
change. He had identified bureaucracy as an appendage of the
ruling class, which had worked in tandem with the state to
perpetuate the existing rule. Citing the example of French
bureaucracy during the revolution of 1789, he had shown how
bureaucracy had facilitated the ruling bourgeois class. In his
view, bureaucracy is often acted as a buffer which absorbs
shocks that might hit the state. Therefore, as a true, scientist of
social change he had identified the crucial importance of
bureaucracy in sustaining the statuesque and prescribed the
simultaneous abolition of bureaucracy and the state. Even
though Marx dealt with public administration only as
complementary to capitalism, his ideas are profound in two
respects (1) while elaborating his argument concerning the rise
 and decline of capitalism, he was more and more engaged in the
real momentum of developed capitalism, as evidenced in the
struggle between those upholding capitalism and those who are
opposed to it. In this process, bureaucracy had no choice but to
act formally as an appendage to the system of production
contributing to the division of classes and (2) by identifying the
institutional roots of bureaucracy. Marx provided a contextual
explanation of public administration contrary to the Weberian
universal model of administration. Bureaucracy is ‘rational’
provided it is conceptualized within a socio-economic format.
Therefore, there cannot be a meaningful universal design. This
is where Marx stands out as a creative theoretician of public
administration, which is not merely a structure, but is
ideological in the sense of its behaviour, specific to the socio-
economic and political milieu within which it is located.

Comparative analysis
Aspect Classical approach Modern Approach

Time period Since 1887 there have The new approaches which
been different approaches
mainly appeared after
to the study of public
administration when this World War II came as a
subject as a separate
reaction to the older
academic discipline was
born. approaches.

methodology The methods employed in The methods employed in

the study were mainly the study were mainly,
historical and descriptive empirical, systematic, and
scientific
Key difference Focus on formal structures, legal Emphasis on behavioral, systemic,
frameworks, and historical context and socio-economic dimensions

Key sub a) Historical approach a) Behavioral approach

b) Legal approach b) Systems approach
approaches c) Institutional approach c) Structural functional
 approach
d) Marxist approach

Criticism (if found)