Introduction

This chapter examines the historical development of Public Administration both as an activity

and as an academic discipline. It traces the evolution of administrative practices from ancient

civilizations to the modern era and analyzes the intellectual phases that shaped Public

Administration into a distinct field of study. The chapter emphasizes that although administration

as an activity is as old as organized human society, its formal recognition as a scholarly

discipline emerged much later, particularly in the late nineteenth century.

The discussion is structured into two broad parts:

Public Administration as an activity

Public Administration as an academic discipline

It further explores the five major phases in the development of Public Administration as an

academic field.
Public Administration as an Activity

The chapter establishes that Public Administration predates modern civilization. From the

moment human beings began living in organized communities, the need for coordination,

planning, leadership, and resource management emerged. These functions form the core of

public administration.

Ancient Civilizations

Evidence from history shows that rudimentary administrative systems existed in:

Ancient Egypt

Ancient China

The Roman Empire

In Egypt (as early as 1300 BC), centralized bureaucratic systems were developed to manage the

Nile River and organize large-scale projects. In China (around 202 BC), structured systems of

recruitment, training, and civil service examinations were already in place. These systems

demonstrate early forms of merit-based bureaucracy.

Chinese administrative thought, influenced by scholars such as Confucius, emphasized order,

hierarchy, discipline, and system. The construction of the Great Wall of China also reflected

advanced administrative coordination.

Similarly, classical thinkers such as Aristotle discussed governance and administration in works

like Politics, although administrative ideas were not separated from political theory at that time.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513) also contributed ideas relevant to statecraft and

administration, while Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers in the United States contained

elements of administrative reasoning.

Thus, while administration existed practically in governance structures, it was not yet recognized

as a separate academic discipline.

Public Administration as an Academic Discipline

Although administration had long existed in practice, it was not until the late nineteenth century

that it became a formal field of academic inquiry.

The turning point came in 1887 with Woodrow Wilson’s article, “The Study of Administration.”

Wilson argued that administration should be studied scientifically and separated from politics.

His work is widely regarded as the foundation of modern Public Administration.

The delay in recognizing Public Administration as a discipline can be attributed to:

Its close association with Political Science

The blending of administrative ideas with history, ethics, and political philosophy

Lack of systematic academic structure

However, from 1887 onward, the field began to evolve through identifiable phases.

Phases in the Development of Public Administration

Phase One (1887–1926): Politics–Administration Dichotomy

This phase began with Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 article. Wilson argued that:

Politics is concerned with policy-making.

He believed administration should be studied independently of political interference to improve

efficiency.

Frank Goodnow reinforced this view in his book Politics and Administration (1900),

emphasizing that politics expresses the will of the state while administration executes it.

Leonard D. White further strengthened the discipline in 1926 with the first textbook dedicated

solely to Public Administration: Introduction to the Study of Public Administration.

Major Characteristics of Phase One

Clear separation between politics and administration

Emphasis on neutrality and efficiency

Attempt to establish Public Administration as a science

Criticism

The strict separation between politics and administration was unrealistic because, in practice,

administrators influence policy decisions.

Nevertheless, this phase laid the foundation for Public Administration as an academic discipline.

Phase Two (1927–1937): Principles of Public Administration

This period shifted attention from “where administration belongs” to “how administration should

function.”

W. F. Willoughby’s Principles of Public Administration (1927) introduced the idea that universal

principles of administration exist.

Mary Parker Follett

Henri Fayol

James Mooney and Alan Reiley

Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick

Gulick and Urwick’s Papers on the Science of Administration (1937) identified administrative

principles summarized in the acronym POSDCORB:

Planning

Organizing

Staffing

Directing

Coordinating

Reporting

Budgeting

These were considered universal administrative functions.

Significance

Emphasis on efficiency and organizational structure

Focus on management techniques

Strengthening of administrative science

Critics later argued that these “principles” were too rigid and not universally applicable.

Phase Three (1938–1947): Public Administration as Political Science

This phase marked a period of criticism and intellectual crisis.

Key critics included:

Chester Barnard (The Functions of the Executive, 1938)

Herbert Simon (Proverbs of Administration, 1947)

Robert Dahl (1947)

Herbert Simon argued that administrative principles were mere “proverbs” — contradictory and

lacking scientific basis. Robert Dahl insisted that Public Administration could not be scientific

without comparative and ecological analysis.

As a result, Public Administration temporarily lost its independent identity and moved back

under Political Science.

Importance of This Phase

Though critical, this period refined the discipline by demanding scientific rigor and empirical

analysis.

Phase Four (1948–1969): Public Administration as Administrative Science

During this period, Public Administration aligned itself with management science and

organizational theory.
Major developments included:

Growth of behavioral approaches

Emphasis on decision-making

Focus on efficiency and organizational development

Important works include:

James March and Herbert Simon’s Organizations (1958)

Cyert and March’s Behavioral Theory of the Firm (1962)

In 1956, Administrative Science Quarterly was founded, promoting the idea that administration

is universal—whether public or private.

Characteristics

Scientific management

Behavioral theory

Organizational studies

Emphasis on efficiency

Dilemma

The challenge during this phase was distinguishing public administration from private

administration, especially regarding:

Profit motive

Public accountability
Political influence

Phase Five (1970–Date): Public Administration as Management of Public Affairs

This modern phase began with the formation of NASPAA (National Association of Schools of

Public Affairs and Administration) in 1970.

This era is characterized by:

Interdisciplinary approach

Increased professionalization

Accreditation of programs

Renewed identity

Public Administration became recognized as the management of public affairs, focusing on:

Public policy

Governance

Development administration

Public sector reforms

In Nigeria, Public Administration is offered as a separate discipline in many universities, though

in some institutions it remains under Political Science.

Overall Evaluation of the Chapter

Strengths

Provides comprehensive historical analysis.

Explains intellectual evolution through identifiable phases.

Highlights major scholars and their contributions.

Weaknesses

Heavy focus on American scholarship.

Limited discussion of African administrative traditions.

Minimal analysis of contemporary reforms like New Public Management.

Conclusion

The chapter successfully demonstrates that Public Administration evolved gradually from ancient

administrative practices to a structured academic discipline. While administration as an activity

is as old as organized society, its formal study began in 1887 with Woodrow Wilson’s seminal

article.

The five phases of development show that the discipline has undergone intellectual struggles,

criticisms, redefinitions, and reinventions. From the politics–administration dichotomy to the

principles era, from scientific criticism to administrative science and finally to modern public

management, Public Administration has continuously adapted to societal needs.

Today, Public Administration stands as an interdisciplinary and dynamic field essential for

effective governance and development, especially in countries like Nigeria where administrative

efficiency directly impacts national progress.

Adebayo, A. (1981). Principles and practice of public administration in Nigeria. Spectrum

Books.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration

Review, 7(1), 1–11.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management (C. Storrs, Trans.). Pitman. (Original work

published 1916)

Follet, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. Longmans, Green and Co.

Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. Macmillan.

Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration. Institute of

Public Administration.

Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 72. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist

Papers.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.

Machiavelli, N. (1513/1961). The prince (G. Bull, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Simon, H. A. (1947). Proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67.

Waldo, D. (1953). The study of public administration. Doubleday.

White, L. D. (1926). Introduction to the study of public administration. Macmillan.

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222