Introductions

With over eight thousand years of experience and intellectual growth (Cameron (1968), Edwards (Gadd, 1971), Hammond (1971), Eisenstadt (1963, 1993), Olmstead ( 1948), etc.), public administration has undergone numerous changes and transformations over its long history, but it has never been so challenged as in the last thirty years. These changes and transformations have had such a profound impact on the nature, behaviour and outlook of public administration that scholars must grapple with a crucial question: what is public administration’s future? This question is difficult to answer because different points of view offer different projections. But this may be one of the best and most promising things that academic public scholarship has to offer. 

A more in-depth and systematic analysis of the history, current state, and prospects of the field may provide insight into the future: one that is positive and hopeful; another that is negative and pessimistic; and a third that is perhaps a combination of the two.

Regardless of your point of view, there are several aspects of the field that deserve consideration and interest, as well as some reasons for optimism.

1. Legal and constitutional (the implementation of laws, regulations, and the safeguarding of the constitutional basis of a state by civilian and military bodies and activities).

2. Government organization and management (organization and management of government entities, government subsidiaries, government contractors, and all details and dynamic elements of public organizations and management).

3. Political (domestic political maneuvering and international diplomacy in the management of a nation’s external relations), and finally.

4. The intergovernmental and cross-border as well as cross-country and cross-regional aspects of administrative and governance collaboration in a rapidly changing world with multiple challenges and actors.

All of these dimensions will extend the life of public administration, both in practice and as a subject of research and study, well into the future. However, it is also a future that is both hopeful and worrying, as it raises the possibility that the challenges facing public administration in the future are the dialectical opposite of the challenges or problems facing us today that we need to solve first, but for which there are no easy answers. In this article, we will argue that public administration and its impact on markets, governance structures, and people around the world will be more global in nature than ever before. There are five critical issues facing public administration that, taken together, will define its future:

• First, the Rise of Corporate Greed in the Globalized World;

• Second, the Collapse of Government Institutions and Market Capitalism;

• Third, the current state of affairs of the public administration as a business of ideas.

• Fourth, the success of the industry is the success of the industry itself; and

• Fifth, technology is a double-edged sword, but that's not what this article is about.

Although not discussed in detail here, technology is both a blessing and a curse, a tool of opportunity and abomination, freedom and oppression, democracy and tyranny, and progress and decay. Technology, as a tool, affects all of the challenges mentioned above. For instance, body scanners are used today to improve the efficiency of airport security administration, but they are also a violation of privacy and human liberty. Ironically, and intriguingly, these same challenges also serve as a source of strength to help revive public administration as an area (not a traditional discipline) of learning and practice.

Challenges of Public Administration

While there are many challenges facing public administration, the following four stand out for their significant impact on the field and are the focus of this article. Due to space limitations, we will not discuss the fifth challenge, which is critical for the future of public administration as a self-conscious business, to borrow from the words of Dwight Waldo (1982/ 1992).

Predatory Globalisation of Capitalism 

The perplexing peculiarity of globalisation inspires assorted points of view, with three transcendent perspectives molding the talk. Backers of globalisation, including figures like Friedman, Fukuyama, and Ohmae, view it as an inescapable and positive result of entrepreneur improvement. Going against the norm, a subsequent gathering driven by pundits like Brecher, Cox, and Korten, eagerly goes against globalisation, refering to its unfriendly consequences for state sway, a vote based system, and public government assistance. The third viewpoint, advocated by researchers like Boyer and Drache, Hirst and Thompson, and Stiglitz, recognizes globalization However it accentuates its extraordinary effect on the state and policy management. This viewpoint battles that the state makes due yet goes through a transformation, moving from a managerial government assistance state to a coercive corporatist substance in support of globalising corporate private enterprise.

The term “predatory globalisation” is derived from the extreme methods used by global corporations to obtain absolute profits. These methods include the exploitation of cheap labor, the deregulation of markets, and the manipulation of governments to remove barriers. The term ‘predatory globalisation’ emphasizes the unrestricted pursuit of profits, sometimes at the cost of public interests, which contribute to world poverty and social and economic disparities. Predatory globalisation goes beyond economic spheres and includes geopolitical tactics and interventions, similar to those of previous colonial powers, with the goal of creating an international empire.

In this article, we look at the four main challenges that predatory globalisation poses to public administration. First, it cripples the state by weakening its institutional capacities. Second, it facilitates the privatization of the public sector, weakening the public administration's legitimacy. Third, it turns the state into a coercively-oriented entity, weakening the public sphere. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it threatens democracy and human rights around the world. In the wake of the 2008 Wall Street crash, the global elites used state power for large-scale bailouts, exacerbating systemic inequalities. This highlights the symbiotic relationship that the state and capitalism share, challenging the idea of a state that is powerless and emphasising the role that bureaucracy plays in strengthening existing power structures.

The effects of predatory globalisation go far beyond the realm of economics. As global mega-corporations manipulate political systems for their own profit, the erosion of human rights and democracy becomes evident. The connection between capitalism and democracy is problematic, as past examples such as that of Hitler in Germany and Pinochet in Chile demonstrate how a capitalist system can co-exist with a repressive regime. Equating democracy with capitalism also raises false expectations, as oppressed people may not find liberation through a popular upsurge against an authoritarian regime. To sum up, predatory globalization creates multifaceted problems for public administration, changes the nature of the state, undermines democracy, as well as human rights. It necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of the relationship between capitalism and the state, with a focus on the need to create a new paradigm to address the damaging consequences of unchecked global capitalism for society as a whole.

Institutional Failures

Hegemonic globalization and widespread privatisation have left public institutions around the world, both public and semi-public, unable to provide essential services and protect broad public interests. As a result, the majority of the world’s population is on a dangerous path, exacerbating poverty disparities and pushing millions (if not billions) into desperate survival situations. Meanwhile, the privileged few have profited disproportionately from globalisation. Even in rich countries, citizens are facing the challenges that were once common to less developed regions. Unemployment, economic stagnation, rising poverty, mounting national debts, and increased social and political control are exacerbating global uncertainty.

Institutional failure comes in many forms, but the most common is the failure of market institutions to meet the fundamental needs that are necessary for the functioning of the market and for democratic governance. Governments and market institutions alike have failed to provide adequate living standards, employment, health care, and education despite many promises made. Proponents of corporate globalisation, who claim that globalisation promotes market-oriented governance, have not delivered on their promises, as the global economic crisis of 2008 demonstrated.

Another aspect of institutional failure is the damaging effects of downsizing, insecurity, and fear within the public service and public administration. The idea of market supremacy promoted by the New Public Management (NPM) has caused public service capacities to deteriorate and the intellectual shift towards market-oriented ideologies. There has been little criticism and opposition to NPM, yet it has had a corrosive effect on public administration’s institutional and intellectual capabilities. All in all, the failures of both the government and the market institutions have damaged citizens’ trust, impaired institutional functioning, and weakened the legitimacy of government and market capitalism around the world. This downward trend, worsened by the effects of corporate globalization, is a major challenge for public administration, institutionally as well as intellectually. The field is struggling with impaired institutional capacities and theoretical chaos, as well as an identity crisis, which has left it marginalised within the business schools.

The Scarcity of Public Administration

Public administration is a complex combination of an academic discipline, an intellectual foundation, and a professional practice. It traces its roots back over eight thousand years to ancient Mesopotamia, when large-scale public-service organizations were established. In the modern era, public administration was shaped by Western political philosophy, rooted in the ideas of ancient Greece and Roman system, which had a major impact on the administrative principles seen in America and Europe. 

Despite its importance, public administration has struggled with an identity crisis. It oscillates between being seen as an academic discipline and being seen as an interdisciplinary field. Public administration has seen significant growth in scholarship over the past century, particularly in the United States. The field has advanced in theory and empirical testing, with academic journals and international conferences proliferating. However, its identity crisis continues, leading to institutional devaluation and a battle for a secure and respected place within academia.

The complexity of public administration's definition and operationalization has contributed to its continuing identity crisis. While public administration lacks a clear philosophy or academic status, it has a rich history. However, this history is often drowned out by anti-government sentiment fueled by market-driven ideologies. Market-oriented theories such as public choice or transaction-cost theories argue in favor of privatisation, challenging traditional public administration models. The NPM movement, which advocates for market-driven reforms, has gained traction but has been met with opposition and criticism. A central tenet of the NPM movement is the implementation of privatisation, which is in line with corporate globalisation objectives. However, accountability and responsiveness issues have forced some countries to either abandon or modify their NPM practices.

Public administration is further complicated by the “war on terrorism,” in which governments and corporations work together to advance corporate global interests, which threatens the public service philosophy. Predatory capitalism, the financial crisis of the state and the global crisis of capitalist systems all contribute to fundamental issues within public administration. The lack of constitutional legitimacy of public service further exacerbates these issues. Public administration faces a grave danger from predatory capitalism, which threatens its position as a noble profession devoted to public service. The militarisation of state, turning it into a “penitentiary state” for social control, raises questions about the future of public administration. 

The administration of “public affairs” risks becoming the administration of the “public” for the purpose of social control, which would be a profound intellectual and institutional deterioration.

Public administration is navigating a landscape that is steeped in history, academic ambition, and the complexities of market-driven ideologies. Its current identity crisis is a reflection of the struggle between traditional academic standards and the ever-evolving demands of cross-disciplinary practice. The dangers of predatory capitalism, globalisation, and the weakening of constitutional legitimacy highlight the need for an in-depth reflection on the purpose and direction of public administration in the face of ever-evolving social conditions.

Attainment of the Field

The challenges facing public administration have been compounded by its historical success and effectiveness, posing a significant threat to corporate capitalism. Public administration and bureaucratic institutions, known for providing stability and order throughout history, have endured for over 8,000 years across various empires, from Early Elam and Persia to modern powers like the United States and post-communist Russia. Notably, public administration played a crucial role in rescuing the U.S. from the Great Depression in the 1930s, solidifying its status as a powerful institution.

The challenge of public administration has been exacerbated by its long history of success and effectiveness in challenging corporate capitalism. Public administration and bureaucratic structures, which have long been associated with stability and order, have been around for more than 80,000 years in various realms, from ancient Elam to modern Russia and the United States. Public administration played a critical role in saving the United States in the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the post-war era, however, public administration's success became a target for corporate interests. With its powerful economic and governance power, the administrative state was criticized for being too big, too intrusive, and as a threat to democratic values. 

Politicians, academics and corporate elites alike sought to destroy public administration, seeing it as a threat to their power structure. This attack on bureaucracy went beyond politics, as conservative Republicans as well as liberal Democrats played a role in building and dismantling the welfare state. The administrative state, despite criticism, continued to play a critical role during crises such as the financial crash of 2008, when corporations turned to the state to bail them out. This reliance on the state has caused its identity and funding to blur, and it has become more and more instrumentalised in serving the interests of corporations and capitalism. 

In the face of economic decline, the state has become a tool of global corporate power. Its identity has blurred and its funding has decreased, but it still plays a vital role in sustaining social and political order. The state has become more involved in security and policing, often in collusion with the private mercenary armed forces of the global corporations. Public administration has become part of the global agenda, which raises questions about its compatibility with the West's vision of exerting power around the world, whether by force or by peaceful means.

The Coming Future of Public Administration

As we mentioned at the start of this article, many of the same forces that cause serious problems for public administration also provide hope and opportunities for the survival, recovery, and growth of the sector in the future. There are several potential outcomes.

1. Predatory capitalism's globalisation tends to reduce the size, budget and scope of government and its institutional structures, but it also requires the same institutional foundations in order to cope with what chaos and transformation theories call the "sudden collapse and partitioning of the corporate system" due to chaotic behaviors. Predatory globalisation has large resources and can compensate for significant losses caused by chaotic events. But what it cannot afford, or will not be able to compensate for, is the sudden appearance of large-scale disruptions that turn chaotic and threaten them, such as large-scale riots, revolts and revolutions. The state in general, and the administrative state particularly (civilian and military) must be called upon to save global capitalism institutionally and financially.

2. The problems of institutional failures in the corporate and public or governmental sectors also present opportunities for the revival and development of public administration in the future. Until now, the institutional failures of the corporate market have caused a pause in its almost “free-hand” operations around the world. Popular discontent and frustration with the market’s institutional failures have led to calls for ‘regulatory regimes’ to change the rules of conduct of the markets, to monitor the behavior of the market, and to hopefully prevent its abuse and destructive behavior. In this regard, some of the most well-known and influential proponents of libertarian capitalism (such as Milton Friedman, Peter Drucker, and Alan Greenspan ) have recently acknowledged its shortcomings and acknowledged the need for a certain degree of market regulation. Economist Paul Krugman, a political scientist, Eleanor Ostrom, and sociologist Oliver Williamson have recently won Nobel Prizes arguing for a ‘regulated market’ economy to prevent the abuse of corporate behavior and to enable the state to do its job.

3. The poverty of the public administration will also necessitate a concerted effort by the public administration community, practitioners and scholars alike, to find ways to establish and legitimize the field with a deserved identity as a professional area of multidisciplinary study and practice. Public administration cannot and should not be an academic discipline. 

Rather, it should be similar to other professional areas of study and practice, such as law, medicine, social work, etc. Practitioners and scholars alike must work on this, because there is no way out of this quagmire. The challenge is to build a philosophical foundation for public administration and to advocate concrete road maps, strategies and requirements that set high standards for learning and professional conduct, and hold members to the values and standards that support and sustain good administrative and governance principles that support democracy.

At the end of the day, the success of public administration is a great opportunity to rebuild, redevelop, and refound public administration as a thought (theory) as well as a professional practice. The records of success must be gathered, studied, analyzed, and shared as a source of knowledge, experience, and the intellectual basis for future teaching, education, and training of professionals and scholars devoted to the high calling of public service and public administration as a new profession. Public administration is as ancient as human civilisation. Its administrative organisations or institutions can be traced back more than 8,000 years to early civilisations in the Near East. Public bureaucracy has weathered millennia of political and social changes, provided continuity through change, and provided stability in service delivery and order through rebellions and revolutions around the world. The success of the field is a good thing; its failures should be a cause for self-doubt, self-examination, and self-correcting.

Conclusion

In his preface to “Public Administration” (20 years ago), Richard Stillman outlined four possible futures for public administration: “negative-state, bold-state, “pre-state, and “prostate” models.” However, the reality of a globalized world challenges these models, and the constant effort at Americanisation, as well as the negative responses to it, are two influential global trends that shape the field. The first is the global impact of American governance models, especially in developing countries, China, and Eastern Europe, which have been institutionalised since World Wars II. This has contributed to the acceleration of globalisation and the rise of US corporate power, especially after 9/11. The second is the backlash against Americanization, which manifests itself as a backlash against the association of Americanized governance with the promotion of authoritarianism, concealment, and corruption, which critics view as neo-colonization or imperialism.

Expecting a third worldwide pattern, the article proposes the chance of a "half and half" or blended model of policy management that coordinates native qualities with Western models. The eventual fate of policy implementation is imagined with five key components: its instrumental job in globalisation, the "hesitant administrative regulatory state," endeavors to lay out a way of thinking stressing a harmony among control and public help, building managerial capacities with regards to administration in a globalised time, and the effect of quick mechanical advances.

All in all, the article underlines the requirement for policy management to develop in light of difficulties, upholding for a way of thinking that adjusts control and public help to try not to develop hatred and cultivate a solid progression of the field in the 21st hundred years. The street ahead requires boldness, diligence, inventiveness, and development to fabricate a discipline strong of a vote based system in the midst of worldwide powers forming country states.

References

1. Page, M. B. (2016). Public leadership: Navigating leadership challenges and operating in service of the common good in an interconnected world. International Journal of Public Leadership, 12(2), 112-128.

2. Perry, J. L., & Christensen, R. K. (2015). Handbook of public administration. John Wiley & Sons.

3. Wong-A-Foe, D. (2023, November). Navigating the Implications of AI in Indonesian Education: Tutors, Governance, and Ethical Perspectives. In International Conference on Data Science and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 349-360). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

4. McConnell, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3-4), 221-242.

5. Gasser, U., Ienca, M., Scheibner, J., Sleigh, J., & Vayena, E. (2020). Digital tools against COVID-19: taxonomy, ethical challenges, and navigation aid. The Lancet Digital Health, 2(8), e425-e434.

6. Exmeyer, P. C., & Jeon, S. H. (2023). Public Service Ethics: Individual and Institutional Responsibilities: A Review: By James S. Bowman and Jonathan P. West, New York, NY: Routledge, 2021.

7. Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2021). Human resource management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems. CQ Press.

8. Lowe, T., French, M., & Hawkins, M. (2020). Navigating complexity: The future of Public Service. The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant, 1-19.

9. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.

10. Reid, E. (2015). Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal worker image: How people navigate expected and experienced professional identities. Organization science, 26(4), 997-1017.

11. Malla, M. F. H., & Jorasia, A. Exploring Strategies for Effective Development Administration in Public Administration: a Review of Approaches, Challenges, and Opportunities. IJFMR-International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 5(3)