THE DOMAIN OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

C. Thornhill
School of Public Management and Administration
University of Pretoria

ABSTRACT

P
ublic Administration as a discipline is traditionally associated with the
domain of the public sector and the executive duties of government. Various
developments during the past decades have had a marked effect on the
delimitation of the public sector and the role of governmental institutions in serving
society. Partnerships between public institutions and so-called private bodies, non-
governmental organisations and other entities necessitate a re-evaluation of the area
of study of Public Administration. This article is intended to introduce a debate on
the determination of the domain of Public Administration in a contemporary state in
which the government and private sectors have to co-operate to satisfy the complex
needs of society. Thus attention has to be devoted not only to the traditional
activities associated with administration and management, but also acknowledging
the need for governance in rendering services to society.

INTRODUCTION
raditionally the study of Public Administration concerned the administrative
activities concerned with the governing and the administrative requirements to
give effect to governmental policies. The contemporary state has developed to
such an extent that the area of study of the Discipline needs to be reconsidered. It has
to be established whether Public Administration could indeed claim to have an exclusive
domain and whether the public sector still could be identified unambiguously. It seems
as though scholars of Public Administration should reconsider the area of study and even
commence discussions with related disciplines in an effort to enhance the knowledge base
of the Discipline and to improve the quality and service rendering to society by employees
with a sound ethical base and properly trained in the art and science of administration,
management and governance.

C. Thornhill
793
Article
ROOTS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
n the development of the science of Public Administration four generations can be
distinguished according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia viz: one pre-generation and three
actual generations.

The pre-generation
The pre-generation includes thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli. Until the
birth of the national state, the emphasis concerning society lay principally in moral and
political issues, and on the organisation of the public administration. The operation of
this administration was a less urgent problem. From the 16th century, the national state
was the reigning model of the administrative organisation in Western Europe. These
states needed an organisation for the implementation of law and order and for setting
up a defensive structure. The need for expert civil servants, with knowledge about,
administration and the military organisation, grew.
In the 18th century the need for administrative expertise in West European countries
grew even further. Therefore the king of Prussia established professorates in Cameralism,
an economic and social school of thought to reform society. A well known professor of
Cameralism was Prof. J.H.G. Justi, who linked Cameralism and the idea of natural law
with each other, but the leading Public Administration scholar at that time was Christian
Wolff, who could be considered as a major contributor to the writings on the modern
science of Public Administration.

The first generation

Lorenz von Stein, since 1855 professor in Vienna, is considered the founder of the
science of Public Administration in Europe. In the time of Von Stein the science of Public
Administration was considered to be a form of administrative law. It should already be
clear that even at that stage Public Administration was linked to the actions of the state
(although the functions of the national state was not finalised during this period). His
opinions were innovative in several respects:
• He considered the science of Public Administration a melting pot of several disciplines.
In the opinion of Von Stein the science of Public Administration was an integrating
science.
• According to Von Stein the science of Public Administration was an interaction
between theory and practice. He considered the science of Public Administration as
the theory but that practice had to form the base.
• Von Stein thought that the science of Public Administration should strive to adopt a
scientific method.

In the United States Woodrow Wilson was the first to consider the science of Public
Administration as an area of study. Wilson was more influential to the science of Public

794 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006

Administration than Von Stein, primarily due to an article Wilson wrote in the Political
Science Quarterly in 1887 in which he argued in favour of four concepts:
• separation between politics and the public administration;
• consideration of the government from a commercial perspective;
• comparative analysis between political and private organisations and political
schemes; and
• reaching effective management by training civil servants and assess their quality.

Most scholars of Public Administration are familiar with the article by Woodrow
Wilson entitled The study of Administration which was published in June 1887 in the
Political Science Quarterly (2, 1997-222) and is generally considered as the origin of
the study of Public Administration. This source is one of the most quoted sources in
articles, dissertations and theses on the Discipline. Wilson argued that “… the field of
administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics.”…
(T)he object of administrative study is to rescue executive methods from the confusion
and costliness of empirical experiment and set them upon foundations laid deep in stable
principle” (Ibid.). He also made it clear that the study of administration should be clearly
distinguished from the study of politics. He acknowledges a science of administration for
America must be principles which have democratic policy very much at heart. And to suit
American habit, all general theories must, as theories, keep modestly in the background,
not in open argument only, but even in our minds – lest opinions satisfactory only to
the standards of the library should be dogmatically used as if they must be quite as
satisfactory to the standards of practical politics as well.” (Ibid.)
From this brief and somewhat cursory overview of the crux of Wilson’s introduction of
the study of administration it is already clear that the Discipline concerned the executive
actions of government. The deduction could also be made that Public Administration (as
the Discipline became known) had a limited focus i.e. on the administrative duties of
the state as an organ responsible for the orderly conduct of public affairs. The roots of
Public Administration are often solely ascribed to the abovementioned article by Wilson.
However, it will be argued that Wilson’s article was indeed not the first reference to the
study of the administrative responsibilities of the state.

The second generation

The discussion about the separation between politics and the public administration as
argued by Wilson continued to play an important role up to 1945. Luther Gulick and Lyndall
Urwick integrated the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol into a comprehensive
theory of administration. Gulick and Urwick believed that the thoughts of Fayol offered
a systematic treatment of management, which was unique at that time. They believed
that this could be applied as well for the management of companies as for administrative
sciences related to the public sector. They did not want to separate the two disciplines,
but believed a single Science of Administration, which exceeds the borders between the
private and the public sector, could exist. Later on the Science of Administration focussed

C. Thornhill
795
 primarily on governmental organisations. The reasoning of the Science of Administration
was largely borrowed from the fourteen principles of organisation of Fayol. Other authors
developed different approaches to delimitate the area of study, but will not be discussed
as the focus of this discussion is on the area of study.

The third generation

After 1945 the third generation arose which questioned the ideas of Wilson and the
second generation. Initially the distinction between politics and the public administration
was strongly relativised by the third generation, but the discussion would continue.
Because of various political scandals Public Administration as a science had to detach
itself from politics. This allowed the Discipline to establish itself as an independent
Discipline with an own body of knowledge.

Public administration as an academic discipline

The academic field is often considered to have evolved in the United States. In Europe,
notably England and Germany under the influence of Max Weber, it started as a separate
scholarly field in the 1890s, but it was first taught in Continental universities in the 1720s
according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia.
A few Public Administration theorists advocate a bright line differentiation of the
professional field from related academic disciplines like Political Science and Sociology. In
general, the interdisciplinary nature of Public Administration is acknowledged. Although
Public Administration theory is not the focus of this discussion it is merely mentioned
as it proves that it is the domain where discussions of the meaning and purpose of
government, bureaucracy, budgets, governance, and public affairs take place. In recent
years, public administration theory has occasionally connoted a heavy orientation toward
critical theory and post modern philosophical notions of government, governance, and
power, but many Public Administration scholars support a classical definition of the term
which gives weight to constitutionality, service, bureaucratic forms of organisation, and
hierarchical government. It will be pointed out later in the discussion that the time has
arrived to reconsider the domain of the area of study as a result of the current roles and
functions of the contemporary state.
George Langrod published a rather insignificantly titled book: Some current problems
of administration in France today (1961). The title of the book is rather misleading and does
not indicate the valuable contents concerning the roots of administrative studies in Europe
in the eighteenth century. The statement is inter alia quoted by the Swiss writer Herbert
Luethy that the secret of the continuity of French history lies in its Public Administration
and not in any particular farsightedness on the part of her rulers and statesmen. (1961.
1). Cases are even quoted of overinspectors of Public Administration appointed in 1247.
Later under Napoleon’s rule préfets embodied the concept of “…Public Administration as
a continuous task to be carried on by a group of civil servants subordinate to the head
of State, forming a hierarchical pyramid of monocratic administrative offices…” (Ibid. 2).

796 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006

This system has been embedded in French system the principle of an anonymous and
politically neutral body of administrative officers who personify the state. (Loc. cit.) Any
discussion on Public Administration in France would be incomplete if reference to the
Conseil d’Etat is omitted. This body could be considered as the cornerstone of French
administration and one of the earliest bodies to be involved in the training of civil servants
through the Ecole Nationale d’Administration and the establishment of an elite corps of
civil servants with a sense of belonging to the civil service thus creating an esprit de
corps. The Council also controlled, ex post, the legality of all administrative acts which
affect the rights and interests of individuals (Ibid. 9). Indeed Langrod even argues that
the science of Public Administration is the result of the Council’s influence (Loc. cit.)
although the Discipline was not taught prior to the nineteenth century. (Ibid. 76) The
further development of Public Administration in France is not discussed in detail. The
brief overview is provided to emphasise the issue that the study of Public Administration
was focussed on the activities of the state as identified during the period referred to.
Although Wilson is considered as the father of the study of Public Administration, he
only re-invented the science that had been developed much earlier in Europe. In fact the
science of Public Administration could be found in the work of the German and Austrian
Cameralists of the sixteenth century. (Ibid. 72). The studies were partly scientific and
partly descriptive and involved politics, governing, statistics and accounting. The further
developments in Europe are not alluded to as the intention was merely to highlight the
fact that Public Administration as a discipline is much older than the popularly held view
that it only commenced with Woodrow Wilson’s article that was published in 1887. It also
underscores the argument that Public Administration concerned the activities related to
the functions for which the state accepted responsibility. Again it must be stated that these
functions were pure state functions performed by institutions under the direct control of
the state irrespective of the fact that in the nineteenth century Germany as an example
could be classified as a police state ( Ibid. 76).
A variety of authors played important roles in the development of Public Administration
e.g. Frank J. Goodnow, 1893; L.D. White, 1926; J.F. Pfiffner & R. Presthus, 1935;
L. Gulick & L. Urwick, 1937; A. Lepawsky, 1949; and H.A. Simon, D.W. Smithburg &
V.A. Thompson, 1950 to quote a few of the well known contributors to the early stages
in the development of the Discipline. The reason why the American origin is more
widely known than the European roots is because the study of the pure form of Public
Administration in Europe faded in favour of the study of Administrative Law. The latter
has a much wider application in European countries than is the case in the Anglo-
Saxon countries, but contributed to the lack of reference in most sources on the earlier
developments of the Discipline in European countries.

DEVELOPMENTS IN 1950S-1980S
t should be noted that even as early as 1945, after the Second World War, changes
appeared in the nature of the activities of the public sector with the involvement of the
state in economic matters as quoted by Langrod (Ibid. 13). Later in the second part of the

C. Thornhill
797
 twentieth century government started playing a role even in business through regulating
inter alia manufactured products, working conditions and in social matters through
welfare services. These changes did not alter the essence of the public sector and the
responsibilities of government regarding service delivery remained largely intact. During
the decades following the initial changing role of the state, government departments
remained the main custodians of service delivery and the state assumed responsibility for
the growing diversity of services required by an urbanising society.
As far as governmental institutions are concerned, the Weberian hierarchical model
applied in most public institutions. This model ensured that public employees kept to
the habitual rules and regulations and thus ensured that policies are being executed as
envisaged by the governing structures (Marais 1991. 221). Thus the persistence of the
bureaucratic model remains in operation, not necessarily due to its academic correctness,
but to its usefulness to persons who consider themselves secure within the prescriptions
of the particular model (Loc. cit). The bureaucratic model proposed by Weber is not
quoted to prove that it was indeed the most appropriate for the twentieth century public
service. It merely serves to illustrate the point that during the era of expanded public
services, it was still possible to utilise strictly defined hierarchical lines, unambiguous lines
of authority and adhere to rigidly prescribed organisational structures.
The nature of the public sector and the relative stability of most Western states and
even the different French, German, Italian, Dutch and British colonies in Africa could
rely on the policy guidelines of the colonial powers. Appointed officials were simply
required to give effect to instructions originating in the colonial capitals and to obey the
strict hierarchical structures. This had an effect on the study of Public Administration as
well as thorough knowledge of procedures, and organisations were paramount in the
preparation of public employees. This may be the reason, why the emphasis in Public
Administration curricula was placed on the operational activities of public institutions.
Public Administration is indeed an academic discipline as well as a practice. The
development of the Discipline and the practice need not always follow the same course
and often do not take place at the same tempo or have the same degree of impact
(Hanekom, 1987. 37). However, it should be noted that if it is accepted that Public
Administration concerns the study of the administrative requirements to render services,
the study should be synchronised with any developments in the practice. It could thus be
observed that the study of Public administration in the mid twentieth century and even in
the earlier part of the later decades of the twentieth century could continue on the same
basis, i.e. focussing on the administrative issues of public institutions.
It should also be stated clearly that in the context of the functions and powers of the
state in the 1960s –1980s the moral principles that formed the basis for the existence and
the survival of the state were considered to be rather sacred although intangible. Therefore,
they were difficult to identify and explain (Cloete,1979. 91). However, these principles
had to serve as guidelines for the conduct of public office bearers and appointed officials
performing their respective functions. These principles also were an inheritance of the
culture from which a particular society developed and which formed the basis of the
ruling party and public officials. It was in this framework that public administration was

798 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006

considered to be a universal phenomenon that could be based on a simplistic universal
value system. As far as Africa is concerned, the advent of the independence of the former
colonies proved that public administration is influenced by complex political, social and
physical factors. It also highlighted the need for a reconsideration of the study of the
Discipline. This slowly became a major factor in the debate on the delimitation of the
area of study of Public Administration.

THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY AND BEYOND

here is minor tradition according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia that holds that
the more specific term public management refers to ordinary, routine or typical
management concerns, but in the context of achieving public good. Others see
public management as a new, economically driven perspective on the operation of
government. This latter view is often termed new public management by its advocates
and can be seen as a reform attempt aimed at reemphasizing the professional nature of
the field versus its academic, moral or disciplinary characteristics.
In the 1980s a debate was introduced in South Africa on the question of whether
management should be included in the study of Public Administration. The debate, in
South Africa, developed in a so-called North- South issue. Prof J.J.N. Cloete argued that
management mainly concerned the management of private enterprises and is used to
refer to the functions performed to create and run a private undertaking whose goal is
to make a profit (Cloete, 1984. 37). Various arguments were put forward to approve that
management is more or less limited to the private sector. The emphasis is on improving
efficiency to obtain and increase profit. The dominant value factor which shapes the
behaviour of employees in private enterprises is profit that had to be maximised i.e. the
highest production at the least cost. Thus, it was argued that the emphasis in management
was on the application of techniques e.g. work study, management by objectives,
programme budgeting and operations research.
The debate on management or rather public management focussed on the complexity of
the public sector. It was argued that the introduction of management into the public sector
would oversimplify the nature of the activities of the public sector. This approach would, it
was suggested, be insufficient to obtain effective and efficient public administration. Thus,
a number of universities in South Africa retained Public Administration as the core of the
curricula and used the traditional approach to the contents of the study. The view was held
that efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector are determined by the conduct and
attitude of the functionaries performing their respective duties. Lethargy and immobility
are caused by the attitude and performance of individuals and not by the introduction of
management in the public sector (Cloete, 1984. 41).
Schwella, as the strongest proponent for the introduction of management, represented
the views from the South. He mooted the concept of Public Management. An article
entitled: “Public Administration or Public Management – another perspective or why
not Public Administration and Public Management” appeared in SAIPA Journal of
Public Administration (20 (1), March 1985). In this article the author argued in favour of

C. Thornhill
799
 the (re)introduction of the terminology into the academic literature as in international
literature. In South African Public Administration literature this represented a major shift in
the approach to the study of the Discipline. Public sector matters formerly studied in the
Discipline of Public Administration should thus be studied within the paradigm of Public
Management, it was contended. It is important to note the debate of the 1970s and well
into the 1980s as it opened new avenues for the study in Public Administration with the
inclusion or rather the acknowledgement of managerial concepts.
The particular debate resulted in some kind of truce. The Northern universities
included management in their curricula and the Southern universities endured the
existence of Public Administration. The importance of the debate is to be found in the
introduction of new terminology into the Discipline. What is even more important is
the fact that the area of study was broadened and concepts from the so-called private
sector were utilised to the benefit of the core Discipline. It enriched the Discipline
and contributed to the improvement of the quality of the public service by exposing
employees to new theories and practices formerly considered to be the sole domain of
business management. It also paved the way for the acknowledgement of different ways
to render services to society than merely through formal hierarchical structures.
The 1990s brought some new debates to the fore with the introduction of the concept
of New Public Management. The first deliberations on this so-called new paradigm took
place in 1991. It set the scene for a critical, but constructive review of the results of the
epic transformation of South Africa into a fully democratic state. The crux of the debate
is contained in the Mount Grace Papers: The New Public Administration Initiative and
the Mount Grace Consultation. The New Public Administration Initiative (NPAI) was
considered to be a process, an initiative, a concept and a commitment to change. It was
proposed that the Initiative captured the spirit of transition in South Africa and served
as the potential for the future. ( Mc Lennan & FitzGerald. s.a.. 5). It was an attempt to
develop in a practical and feasible manner, the capacity of institutions to train a future
civil service. The NPAI was also supposed to influence the formation of a responsive civil
service by contributing to the public debate and processes that could have an influence
on the new South Africa. Thus it was acknowledged that major changes were envisaged
for South Africa, not only in the political arena, but also in the approaches to and the
delivering of services by the governmental institutions.
The NPAI required the reconsideration of the study of Public Administration. It
proposed the extension of the areas of interest to civic organisations, non-governmental
organisations and community organisations. (Ibid. 6-7). The questions posed included
whether a new mode of doing was required to meet the needs of the new demands by
the newly liberated society. The Initiative was a clear call to reconsider not only the extent
of the study of Public Administration and also introduced a debate for a paradigm shift
in the study of the Discipline. It was argued that the traditional descriptive approach to
the study emphasising processes and procedures should be changed to a value-oriented
public management approach. The attention in the study of the Discipline and in the
public administrative practices should thus be on the importance of the implementation
of policies and social programmes to cater for the needs of the newly demarcated

800 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006

and fully integrated society. (Ibid. 8). The deliberations indicated that the study of the
Discipline should emphasise rigorous scientific analysis, explanation and prediction; be
socially and professionally relevant; and be development oriented. It also highlighted
the need to reconsider the extent and nature of the services for which the state has to
accept responsibility. It should be obvious that in the early 1990s academics entered the
debate on the teaching of Public Administration with a view to improving the quality of
the role the state could play in society. This implied that it became necessary to review
the paradigm of Public Administration. It already paved the way for an effort to ensure
that the domain of the Discipline will be relevant and strengthen the link between the
academic discipline and the practice.
In 2000 the Mount Grace discourse was continued through the publication of the
debates of the second conference on the NPAI. (2000). The debate attempted to re-evaluate
the Discipline within the context of experiences since 1991 in both the academic field
and the public sector. It was inter alia envisaged that participants should question whether
paradigmatic debates by academics were worthwhile and made any contribution in the
applied fields of the study (Schwella.2000. 33). The deliberations focussed on the South
African context of the study; the current realities of the challenges facing the country and
consequently also the Discipline. The deliberations also considered the diverse factors
affecting the newly established democratic state and the need for a re-commitment to
sustainable and resilient policies for public sector functioning and service delivery. (Ibid. 35).
It is particularly the latter italisized part that is of importance in the discussion on the domain
of Public administration. The phrase referred to gave an indication that academics were
aware of the changes taking place in the South African public sector and that the rendering
of services should be considered in the study of Public Administration and Management.
The arguments during the Mount Grace II deliberations demanded of academics to
think about the Discipline; to reconsider the training needs of the public officials and to
avoid falling into the trap of the finite needs fallacy; the competition for scarce resource
opportunities fallacy; the one best way fallacy the unidisciplinary fallacy, and the orthodox
fallacy. (Ibid. 38). The deliberations need not be summarised or repeated. However, the
conference is of importance in the discussion on the domain of the area of study as it was
a clarion call for academics to critically assess their contributions to the development of
public service adhering to particular community values, but intent on providing efficient
and effective services to meet the changing needs of society.

CURRENT CHALLENGES
t may seem as though the discussion up to this point mainly concerned a historical
overview of the development of the study of Public Administration and Management as
well as the practice of administrative functions. However it was important to note the
developments to be able to comprehend the effects of the current extent of the state’s
activities and its relationship with the so-called private sector. The following will serve as
examples to illustrate the complexity of the environment within which the studies of Public
Administration and Management have to be undertaken.

C. Thornhill
801
 Labour legislation
The Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation 103 of 1994) was the first legislation passed
under the newly elected democratic government since it assumed authority in April 1994.
Although the Act was not passed by Parliament, but issued as a proclamation by the
President, it has the same power as any legislation passed by Parliament. This Act serves
as the foundations for matters relating to the Public Service. The Act, as the short title
indicates, regulates inter alia the organisation as staff matters of government departments;
their appointments and transfer; termination of service; and obligations, rights and
privileges. Section 2 of the Act inter alia states that it applies to or are in respect of “…
officers and employees whether they are employed within the Republic, and in respect of
persons who were employed in the public service or who are to be employed in the public
service”. Thus this Act could clearly be classified as applicable to the traditional area of
study of the Discipline of Public Administration. However, this is not the only legislation
that regulates labour matters of officers and employees in the Public Service. Various other
pieces of legislation have been passed that apply to the public service as well.
The Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act 66 of 1995) provides for a variety of labour
related matters, e.g. rights of trade unions; collective bargaining; and gives effect to public
international law obligations of the Republic relating to labour relations. This Act applies
to both the private and the public sectors. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997
(Act 75 of 1997) gives effect to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, by
establishing and making provision for the regulation of basic conditions of employment
and also gives effect to the Republic’s obligations as a member of the International Labour
Organisation. This Act includes the Public Service (with specific exceptions), but applies
to the private sector as well (cf section 3). In a similar fashion the Promotion of Equality
and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act 4 of 2000) gives effect to the
constitutional requirements regarding the prevention and prohibition of unfair discrimination
and harassment; and promotes equality by eliminating unfair discrimination.
The extensive list of labour legislative measures passed since 1994 are not discussed.
The essence of the matter is that the labour legislation passed since 1994 apply to both
the public and the private sectors. The legislation can, thus, no longer be viewed as the
exclusive domain of the Discipline. Scholars of Public Administration are also no longer
the sole custodians of the knowledge relating to labour matters applicable to officers
and employees in the Public Service. The examples quoted prove the argument that the
domain of Public Administration is no longer clearly delineated as it was during the earlier
stages in the development of the Discipline

Information related legislation

Prior to 1994 the governmental institutions in South Africa were dominated by the code
for secrecy and confidentiality of information related to various policies and practices.
The governmental institutions were not obliged to make information freely available and
extensive legislative measures and other policies governed the availability of information

802 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006

concerning the public sector. In 2000 two significant acts were passed that changed the
face of the public sector regarding its operation.
The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act 2 of 2000) was passed to give
effect to the constitutional right of access to any information that is held by the state or
by a person that is required for the exercise or protection of any right. The Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act 3 of 2000) was related to the first mentioned Act.
The latter Act gives effect to the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable
and procedurally fair and to the right to written reasons for administrative action as
required in section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The
two acts are mentioned simply to illustrate the issue that the public sector is indeed now
public and can no longer claim to the right not to make information available or to justify
its actions. This also confirms the argument that the public sector should be considered as
part of the total South African realm as far as study is concerned and that other disciplines
could make valuable contributions to the area that was considered to be the domain of
scholars of Public Administration.

Municipal legislation
Section 76 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act 32 of 2000)
provides for different mechanisms municipalities have at their disposal for rendering
services to the municipal community. These mechanisms include inter alia:
• an internal mechanism which may be a department or other administrative unit within
its administration ;or a business unit devised by the municipality;
• an external mechanism by entering into a service agreement with a municipal entity,
another municipality or an organ of state;
• a community based organisation or other non-governmental organisation; or
• any other institution, entity or person legally competent to operate a business activity.

The Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act 56 of 2003)
contains in chapter 10 a similar provision as chapter 6 of the Public Finance Management
Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 1999) concerning the utilisation of public entities for the delivery of
public services. Sections 84 and 85 of the municipal legislation provide for the governance
of public entities. These acts clearly illustrate the point that the so-called public sector
now has become involved in matters originally the domain of the private sector.

GOVERNANCE
he concept of governance has entered the literature of Public Administration in the
late 1980s. There was, unfortunately, no clear definition attached to the term (cf.
Naidoo, 2004.104). Without going into the detail of the confusion caused from a
scientific point of view the meaning attached by the United Nations will be used, viz that
governance is a comprehensive concept referring to the combined effort of political and
public institutions in conjunction with the private sector (including non-governmental

C. Thornhill
803
 organisations) in providing services to society. Governance is thus an indication of a
significant new development in the practice of public administration, and by implication
also in the Discipline.
In the study of Public Administration, scholars have to acknowledge the presence
of so-called private sector phenomena e.g. stakeholder interest; shareholders; risks;
and client preferences. This is particularly obvious in the municipal sphere of service
rendering through public-private partnerships and public entities as provided for in the
relevant municipal legislation. The Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 and
the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 contain dedicated
chapters on the new concept of governance relating to the extended area of operation of
the public sector. These references prove that public administration is moving into new
operational areas. Therefore there is a clear need to reconsider what the field of study of
the Discipline should be.
During the year 2000 the Board of Directors appointed a commission of Enquiry under
Judge King on the ethical guidelines that should be adhered to in the corporate sector. The
King II Report was published in 2002. The contents of the Report may seem to be irrelevant,
but Judge King made one particularly significant recommendation relevant to this discussion.
The proposed Business Judgement Rule determines that a board of directors could not be
held accountable for a decision that transpires to be wrong, but at the time of the decision
was based on the available facts; was unbiased; and was bona fide. This rule implies that
should a decision be made without considering the relevant facts; was biased; and mala
fides, the Board could be held accountable (King, 2004. 71). King recommended that this
rule should be applicable to all organs of state (cf. section 239, Constitution, 1996).
The significance of this Business Judgement Rule becomes obvious when the decision
making practices of a municipal council is considered. It implies that councillors could
personally be held accountable for decisions that turn out to be detrimental to a particular
community if a decision was taken without considering all the facts; was biased; and
mala fides. This is a novel concept in the public sector and exemplifies the merging of the
traditional two clearly demarcated sectors each operating under rather different sets of
ethical guidelines and decision-making rules.
Governance in contemporary society has created a further need to reconsider the
implications of the decision-making processes. The King Report could be cited as a
major deviation from the traditional concept of public sector decision-makers not being
accountable for decisions taken as a result of the political values attached to the facts in
coming to particular conclusions.

A SYNTHESIS
he discussion is an attempt to elicit debate on the domain of Public Administration.
Some historical developments have been cited to indicate that scholars of the
Discipline as well as practioners of public administration and management have to
take stock of:
• the area of operation of the so-called public sector

804 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006

 • the dividing line between public sector and private sector
• the implication of the practice of governance on the operations of employees and
political office- bearers on their respective areas of operation
• the field of study of the Discipline of Public Administration.

No final answer to the issues raised above is possible at this stage. However, it could
be argued that the Discipline is not under threat. Nicholas Henry’s classification of
developments in the discipline (1995) remains valid. The Discipline is in another
phase of its existence. The debate on the locus is no longer an important issue. Public
Administration has established itself as a Discipline in its own right. It remains an eclectic
science and borrows theories and concepts from other related disciplines e.g. Business
Management, Political Science and Psychology. The stage in its development concerns
the issue of its, focus according to Henry.
It should be noted that one phenomenon distinguishes the Discipline from related
disciplines such as Business Management i.e. the political environment of public
administration and management. Practioners of management and administration and
scholars of the Discipline have to recognise this unique factor. The comfort zone of
exclusivity must be relinquished. Especially scholars of the Discipline have to find a
synthesis between two traditionally separate disciplines, without negating the core area of
study i.e. the governmentally determined actions to promote the wellbeing of society.

CONCLUSION
he article traced the origins of the Discipline of Public Administration. It was argued
that the Discipline has proven its existence. It has also proven that since its origin it
was willing to accommodate the developments required as a result of the changing
needs of the state and the concomitant needs of society. Scholars should enter the debate
on what constitutes the domain of the public sector and thus also what should be added to
the theoretical framework of the Discipline to ensure its continued relevance to the study
of the administrative and managerial requirements to decide on governmental intervention
and giving effect to such policy decisions.
It should, however, be stated clearly that one core issue distinguishes Public Administration
from other related disciplines and that is the political milieu within which its operational
activities are performed. All administrative and managerial issues that form the study of
Public Administration and Management are dominated by public policy ultimately the final
domain of the political authority concerned. Thus although there is a need to reconsider the
domain of the Discipline, the political environment puts it into a category of exclusivity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Al-Ghaith, M.A. 1995. How can public management be adapted to the growing quest for
performance improvement. Twenty third International Congress of Administrative Sciences,
Riyadh-Dubai.

C. Thornhill
805
 Bebler, A. & Seroka, J. (Eds.) 1990. Contemporary political systems: classifications and typologies.
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Boyne, G.A. 1996. The intellectual crisis in British administration: is public management the
problem or the solution? Public administration.74, Winter.
Cloete, J.J.N. 1985. Public administration or public management. SAIPA Journal of Public
Administration, 19(2).
Cloete, J.J.N. 1979. SAIPA conference on “Fundamentals for South African Public Administration”
held in Cape Town 17 August 1979. SAIPA Journal for Public Administration, 14(3) September.
Davies, M.R., Greenwood, J. & Robins, L. International Review of Administrative Sciences.1995.61.
Frederickson, H.G. 1996. Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public
administration. Public Administration Review, 56(3) May/June.
Henry, N. 1975. Public Administration and Public Affairs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Institute of Directors. 2004. Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa.
Langrod, G.1961. Some current problems of administration in France today. San Jose: University of
Puerto Rico School of Public Administration.
Naidoo, G.S. Leadership and governance for a sustainable public service. The case for selected
South African public service organizations. PhD thesis. University of Pretoria.
Marais, D. 1991. Max Weber: the limitations of Weberian bureaucracy. SAIPA Journal of Public
Administration, 1991. 26 (4) December.
Pollitt, C. 1996. Antistatist reforms and new administrative directions: Public Administration in the
United Kingdom. Public Administration Review, 56(1) January/ February.
Schwella, E. 1985. Public Administration or Public Management – another perspective or why not
Public administration and Public Management? SAIPA Journal of Public Administration, 20(1).
Wikipedia. 2007. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Public_administration Accessed: December 2006.
Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation 103 of 1994).
Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act 66 of 1995).
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 (Act 75 of 1997).
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act 32 of 2000).
Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act 2 of 2000).
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act 3 of 2000).
Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act 56 of 2003).

806 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 4.1 • December 2006